Featured Articles

Thoughts on The Past Is a Future Country” by Edward Dutton and J.O.A. Rayner-Hilles, Part 3

Conclusion: Is The Past Is a Future Country Compatible with Trad Catholic Religious Belief?

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a fan of dystopic fiction. Setting aside why I like that genre, The Past Is a Future Country is something akin to dystopic fiction in the guise of political and demographic predictions. It is a future-oriented world in which this one — our post-Enlightenment liberal world — has finally hurtled out of control and is destroyed from within. I read it quickly, like I would read a gripping story. I concede that the destruction of liberalism seems too good to be true — I just cannot imagine it happening even if these authors have laid out a plausible path to that future. As a reactionary conservative dinosaur and a religious man living as a foreigner in my own civilization, I welcome its coming destruction. I may not live long enough to see it but knowing it is coming gladdens my heart.

While I cannot deny that a burgeoning underclass, the collapse of governments and technology, and advent of wanton violence and disorder will make life extremely difficult for my descendants, I choose a world of new Byzantiums even in that context over the insanity of late-stage liberalism. Stated most plainly, we cannot create a new Western Civilization — built on the ashes of the old one — without first destroying the liberal monstrosity we call our own. More to the point, I want to live in a Godly community in which sin and vice are condemned by that community even if lawlessness and vice surround it. In a sense, my home and church are already the functional equivalents of the very new Byzantiums predicted by the authors. The only thing we do not yet have is cooperation on economic matters in a corporate fashion. That said, it is not a stretch that we will cooperate if we have too because the community is already in place. Put differently, I already live within a nascent new Byzantium. It has not reached full maturity yet because the social circumstances have not yet demanded that it become that.

So, I clearly liked the book — it provided enormous grist for the mind to consider. The authors are very thoughtful and provide a cogent statement of where we were, are, and are going. That said, there is something off-putting about it that it took me time to puzzle over. Eventually, I found something personally galling about the tenor of the book — call that something like a personal affront. Second, I found something historically did not ring true about it — while the general trend of liberal sterility and religious/conservative fecundity is true, there was a seemingly missing theme of liberalism before the Industrial Revolution that the authors ignored or glossed over.

First, as to the personal affront objection, the authors are not, I suppose, religious people themselves. They certainly do not appear to be Catholics. They write in support of religious people not so much based on the virtues of Christianity or the idealism of the glorious reconstitution of Christendom — or its truth, but only in the Darwinian advantage that religiosity and conservatism, so defined, confer. This is not a book that relishes the coming ascendancy of religion and tribe in the West as a victory for truth or piety — the book predicts it because the authors think it is more likely in Darwinian terms. To put my objection — or perhaps discomfiture — into plainer words, I felt objectified as a Christian. I felt like I was an archetype and stripped of my moral agency in what amounts to an appeal to genetic determinism. In other words, I do not have moral or religious convictions, I have genetic dispositions that make me see the world as I do.

I suppose it is cheerful to learn that your views and beliefs are evolutionarily adaptive — that your makeup is such that you are a part of the “fittest” who will “survive.” It is likewise good to learn that my views and beliefs, which are scorned today, will be eventually vindicated in time. Who would not want that? But I concede that this type of thinking is so far from my way of understanding myself and my beliefs. To put it differently, the righteousness of the faith that I place all my trust in was irrelevant to the question of its survival, and that is something it took time for me to get my head around. Even if I were the last Christian, I would believe it. Indeed, as a contrarian, I picked it long before it conferred any advantage in the age in which I live. Perhaps my religious convictions are “adaptive” from an evolutionary point of view, but my views have never been held because of their “adaptiveness” — I have sacrificed for them because I believe in them — and I believe in Christ. Undoubtedly, my belief in God has motivated how I have lived, and the teachings of Holy Mother Church have influenced the relatively large size of my family. I abhor the immorality of homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, usury, feminism, and pornography — not merely because they are anti-social and maladaptive to Western Civilization, but because they are sinful and an affront to the living God. I believe, like other religious people, that the frequency and acceptance of that immorality is what brings forth the judgment of God in harrowing ways. One way to see the looming catastrophic collapse predicted by the authors is that it is God’s judgment for the sins of this civilization. For me and I suppose many others, I want to see a religious future not so my progeny will survive but because God’s demands of righteousness and human fecundity are gifts from God who allows humans to cooperate in bringing forth new souls who can be eventually citizens of Heaven.

As it relates to the question of genetic determinism — that we effectively lack moral agency because our actions and beliefs are determined by the genetic material that we receive and which makes us, I am not ready to reconcile it by adopting something like a Calvinist worldview of predestinarian thought. For the uninitiated, Calvinism, which is the most thoughtful and intellectually compelling form of Protestantism, put forth the view that man lacked free will — that his eternal destiny was preordained always by the sovereignty of God. The elect were always going to be the elect, and the damned were always going to be the damned. Genetic determinism fits nicely with a Calvinist view that God programmed us to be exactly what we would become. As a Catholic, I revile this Calvinist position — as it is considered blasphemous and inconsistent with the majority view in Christianity that man has free well to make his destiny even if God supplies the necessary grace for him to be saved through faith and works. So, we Catholics start with the principle that man has free will — he has agency and is culpable for the choices he makes.

The next principle appears to be that man’s culpability is conditioned by his circumstances. I believe most Christians would accede to the idea that God not only meets man where he is, but He also judges man where he is.

Finally, most Christians would not object categorically to the notion that certain psychological conditions are heritable and therefore genetic, at least in part. Obviously, there are things like serious psychological pathologies like schizophrenia or clinical depression, and there are, from a Christian perspective, similar pathologies and obsessions like homosexuality or cross-dressing (things that used to be considered secular pathologies before psychology was liberalized in the 1960s). If I divorce all of this from Darwinian language and reject too that genetics provides a complete answer to human behavior (and thereby reject the absence of free will), do I object to the idea that piety, virtue, cooperation, and the conscious protection of tribe contribute to the survival and thriving (i.e., are adaptive) for a given group — and the converse principle that the lack of these traits and the attack on tribe contribute to the destruction and desolation (i.e., are maladaptive) of a given group? No, I do not. Do I object to the idea that these traits, or their opposites, have a natural or genetic component? No, I do not. If I accept that our nature (or genetics) plays a significant part in what we believe and how we will act, and I do, then it does not strike me that the analysis done by these authors, reliant as it is on Darwinian notions, is offensive.

Catholics certainly accede to the notion that Original Sin — that is, our first parent’s disobedience in the Garden corrupted our natures thereafter. If we liken genetic information to computer code, we could liken Original Sin’s effect to a form of corruption of that code. Whatever we do in this life, we cannot avoid the effects of the original corruption because we all sin and cannot avoid it completely — in other words, our sinfulness is baked into the now corrupted code of our nature; or in still other words, our sinfulness is now natural or genetic. Parenthetically, that is why we needed a Savior. The corrupt code (that is man’s wounded genetic nature) and actual sin (that is the manifestation of the corrupt code in action) combine to create a variety of bad outcomes in people and societies. Stated differently, every sickness and every disaster in the world, physical, mental, or otherwise, comes from this cocktail of wounded nature and actual sin. In theological terms, creation groans under man’s mismanagement and disobedience, and man’s mismanagement and disobedience are traced to our first parents and Original Sin. That some are more wounded — sicklier, as it were — it likewise a fact of the world. And we see that in a variety of ways. I accept that homosexuality, for example, can have a partially natural (i.e., genetically influenced) foundation, and therefore homosexuality experienced in the homosexually-inclined is what we Catholics would call a “cross” — that is, a particular moral weakness or infirmity (i.e., maladaptation in Darwinian terms) to which we are inclined and must battle until we die. Salvation comes from more than faith alone, it comes too from our work, aided by God’s grace, in undertaking this battle, day-in and day-out, even if we experience setback after setback. The maladaptive traits and individual strands of liberalism outlined in the book are like the example of the “cross” of homosexuality — they are tendencies or disordered longings towards the impious and the vicious, and they are behaviors that can be helped in the right environment, but in any event must be resisted and condemned regardless. The liberal misanthrope does not lack moral agency because he is genetically inclined in antisocial ways (i.e., sinful ways), but his liberal misanthropy is just another expression — or symptom — of man’s postlapsarian condition. In that sense, I therefore synthesize the hard Darwinian thought of the authors with my religious convictions that demand culpability in all that man does. Put simply, God’s ways are the sine qua non of adaptiveness — adaptive not merely for natural ends such as human survival and thriving, but also and more pointedly, adaptive to our final end, which is Heaven.

My religious views notwithstanding, I see the arguments made in this book aligning with both my anecdotal experience and deductive powers — and the predictive value of the arguments made are based upon social science evidence. Regardless of whether the authors of this book see the triumph of religion in the West as a vindication of truth or the vindication of Darwin or something else, it could be that we are both right. Setting aside the Darwinian nomenclature, perhaps the point is that Christianity and the communitarian “binding” conservative values that the authors propose as adaptive is another validation of what one of the great luminaries of Western Civilization, Saint Augustine, once famously said: man is restless until he rests in God — that is, man is both adaptive and happy in his environment when he is pious, virtuous, communitarian, and cooperative, and he is maladaptive and unhappy when he is not. It has been programmed by God into the special creation that is man — his need for piety and virtue separating man’s destiny from that of all other creation even if that programming was damaged by man’s catastrophic fall from grace in the Garden.

Second, as to the historical objection, it seems to me that destructive forms and iterations of liberalism existed in the West long before the material excesses of the Industrial Revolution gave rise to the maladapted. And I am not even talking about other late-stage empires in decline in similar circumstances. Using their model of binders versus individualizers, how best could we describe the advent of the Reformation era in Europe, which cleaved Christendom in two? Or the rise of the Enlightenment, which ultimately led to the weakening and eventual destruction of both crown and aristocracy? The political revolutions of 1649, 1776, 1789, and 1848 all took place in the West before the Industrial Revolution. All of them exhibit, in the parlance of the authors, the power of the individualizers at the expense of the binders. All of them were essentially liberal and withdrew conservative capital from the greatness of Western Civilization.

To thus generalize a is the West was uniformly composed of religious conservatives until the advent of maladaptive people who survived and procreated because of the ease of life afforded to us by the Industrial Revolution ignores a liberal thread that runs through the West for at least five hundred years — or more if you count the liberal antecedents for the Reformation (like the Hussites or Lollards). True enough, the previous threads of liberalism were not anti-natalist per se, which is something that separates them from the current liberal disease. However, the omission of the growth of greater individualistic movements in Europe for a very long time ignores something basic in our historiography. So, when the authors say that the “past” is a future country, are they saying that the future religious/conservative elite will lead us back to the yeoman farmer of the American frontier — or further back to the Puritans of the Commonwealth of England — or even further back to the days of unity under the umbrella of a united faith and people as such existed in medieval Christendom? Perhaps by leaving this question unasked, the authors allow interested religious conservative readers to fill in the blanks: an American Evangelical reading the work sees the “good ol’ days” as America circa 1800; a French monarchist sees it as a return to the days of the Sun King; and a traditional Catholic sees it as a return to the days before the Reformation cut Christendom in two. The point, it seems to me, is that leaving this obvious liberal thread unaccounted for — because it does not fit the genetic explanation for the maladapted modern liberal world — weakens the work significantly.

Now, it could be that the authors considered this — and they saw something different in kind about the liberalism we experience today, and they do not see the two threads as related or causal but merely consecutive. Even If I find that a stretch, it would have behooved them to address it and disentangle it as best they could. For my own part, I would have preferred them to connect it — to see that the liberal virus has been growing in the West for a long time (with phenomena like the Reformation, Enlightenment, etc.) such that the overthrow of “Peak” liberalism today in the near future is not merely a repudiation of the liberalism of the 1960s and beyond but an overthrow of liberalism that can be traced back hundreds of years. In other words, had they said that Western man was fundamentally conservative, binding, ethnocentric, communitarian, pious, and religious until for example, 1600 — that would have made more sense to me. Be that as it may, I agree with the authors that modern liberalism is going to die of sterility; but the hope for someone like me is that it dies in all of its destructive forms, not merely its modern iteration — and that a new Christendom is reborn out of the ashes.

*         *         *

Is the future predicted by these authors really going to come to pass? I am not sure. They confirmed my observable supposition that political realities will eventually be influenced by who breeds and who does not. The demographic advantage for religious/conservative people and its implications for the future in the near term is something that I do not recall being distilled so thoroughly as it was in this book. Likewise, the demographic advantage of the stupid and impulsive is similarly obvious. I see now that my anecdotal experience of the growth of the very stupid and morally challenged was a clue to a frightening aspect of our future. But one thing that struck me is that the authors view the underclass monolithically — and the picture they paint of the underclass and new religious/conservative elites in the future is one in which intellectual and civilized people are surround by maladaptive Orcs. But no matter what we can say of the stupid and morally challenged, they are definitely not Orcs.

Let me expand on this: let us assume that the world goes exactly as the authors prognosticate — we see a new elite of religious conservatives who are largely ethnically European and Christian. Civilization is preserved within the confines of the new Byzantiums or the havens they create. Outside of these enclaves is an underclass that is not ready, by any stretch, to meet the challenges of a world that does not provide food, housing, and medical care as has been common during the age of the welfare state. If we use the collapse of the Western Roman empire as our example — after all, the very usage of Constantinople as the haven for civilization following the fall of the Western empire is indicative and used by the authors — we see what the Catholics of the fifth and sixth centuries (and beyond) did. Yes, they preserved civilization in Constantinople with the Greeks, but they also created outposts of light and civilization in monasteries that dotted the geography of Western Europe. Slowly they converted the barbarians around them to civilization and Catholicism. The authors of this book suggest something like the future underclass will simply die off because of mutational load and stupidity in a much more challenging environment than exists today. Perhaps some will — perhaps most will, but what is missing is that the challenge of the new Byzantiums will be not merely to preserve civilization as if it was an oasis, but to rebuild something like a new Western Civilization. And that necessarily means a missionary attempt to reach the underclass in the future.

*         *         *

Saint Boniface, Pray for Us.

Thoughts on “The Past Is a Future Country. The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution,” by Ed Dutton and J.O.A. Rayner-Hilles, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Part 2: Review of The Past Is a Future Country

The Past Is a Future Country is a fascinating book. I was introduced to Dutton as an author in my later years. He is a youngish Ph. D who has reinvented himself as an evolutionary biologist of sorts — in the vein of J. Phillipe Rushton and Kevin MacDonald. In the beginning of my foray into banned books, I read and reviewed Dutton’s book, Make Sense of Race, which makes the case that race is real. Parenthetically, I read any number of books about the science of race that were effectively banned merely because they take a heterodox position compared with the prevailing liberal view that race is nothing more than a social construct. This book is different; it touches on race to be sure (and assumes for brevity’s sake the reality of race), but this is a book about genetics, fertility, demography, culture, and politics — and the implications for the future. It is a limited account of the history and future of Western man, at least in selected ways, from a Darwinian perspective. That alone will turn off some readers, and it is discussed a bit more below. However, this evolutionary reasoning is “within-species” human evolution, not speciation; as such, it should not be objectionable to Catholics. But it is much more than that, it is a detailed model of what may come based upon who has children and what this means for the future.

The idea that the religious will inherit the world has special currency in my life as a traditional Catholic. These types of Catholics typically have exceptionally large families by conventional standards because they, among other things, take seriously the Church’s teaching prohibiting birth control. If most Catholics in the West use contraception in much the same way as their secular or non-Catholic neighbors despite the Church’s teaching that contraception usage is sinful, traditional Catholics are uniform in their complete rejection of contraception and their general acceptance of patriarchy. It is common for such families to have six, seven, or more children, and it is further likely that the seriousness and devotion of traditional Catholics means that their children likely will similarly be believing Catholics in future generations. It does not take a demographer to see that the implications for traditional Catholicism are very bright and the likelihood of it eventually eclipsing conventional (i.e., liberal) Catholicism is likewise high — and sooner than people think. Ironically, the phenomenon that the authors tease out in the future of Western societies is at work on a much smaller scale in the Catholic Church. Ergo, she is divided between conservatives and liberals; the liberals have the seats of power, and the conservatives have the faith. Just like the broader society in the West, the Church shifted dramatically in a liberal fashion during the 1960s (Vatican II and its aftermath). Just like the broader society, the anti-social forces of liberalism inside the Church are sterile (producing no children or vocations, and only apostasy) while the faithful and conservative are fecund. We now have hit “peak” liberal Catholicism in the current pontificate, which, like the broader society, is pushing more outrageously in anti-social ways. Thus, what is happening in the Catholic Church fits precisely with what the authors contend is happening (or about to happen) in the broader Western world. Parenthetically, that is why the liberal Catholic hierarchy is trying in vain to crush it. I assume that similar trends exist for other religious groups (like Mormons, Amish, and certain Evangelical branches). Indeed, the liberal mainstream Protestant denominations are in a death spiral by comparison.

Compared with conservative and religious people, the modern misanthropic liberal ideology coupled with feminism produces next to no children. I have seen this up close as well: as someone in a profession overwhelmingly dominated by secularly inclined people, feminist and careerist professional women have surrounded me. Just by anecdote, their fertility is appallingly low. Even for liberal “do-gooders,” like committed social justice warriors and “community activists,” socialists, and environmentalists, their brand of liberalism is just as fatal to fertility as is the liberalism of careerist women and effete beta men. I have always suspected that this dynamic would eventually mean that religious people would swamp liberal people in sheer numbers. In fact, as an example of this in microcosm, Israel, a formerly liberal state, is transitioning to an authoritarian and illiberal state based on demographics and fertility. The religious have many; the seculars do not. While Israel and Jews may not be the best type for comparison (they are congenitally ethnocentric even as liberals), the experience shows the power of who has children and who does not, which has shown up in Israel already because of its small sample size. In fact, this is what The Past is a Future Country is about, and it is a ride filled with fascinating insights and predictions. Indeed, I cannot recall a more gripping book — perhaps because it reads like a plot-twisting prophecy albeit twinged with the science of demography and genetics.

The Past is a Future Country as a prediction for the future world needs to be qualified. Any social science analyses and modeling that make predictions of future human events are likely to be susceptible to attacks from a variety of angles, including bad assumptions, faulty predicates, or missed phenomenon. Even with the inherent problems with social science predictions, we should not assume that they are worthless. If the assumptions are largely correct and if the phenomena are reasonably predictable, then social science predictions about the future should be able to tell us something — not in the exactitude of a mathematical equation but something more akin to an artist’s sketch. The point here is not that things will unfold exactly as the authors predict — it is rather that the authors sought to model what is a known phenomenon: religious and traditionally conservative people outbreed irreligious and liberal people. Similarly, the very stupid and impulsive likewise outbreed irreligious and liberal people. Eventually there must be a political and social reckoning for these facts. This is a book that does what it can to tease all that it can from that reality while filling in the details of why societies and civilizations move as they do.

And this is what they promise in brief:

This book will be a story of exile and abandonment in that context, not triumph and rejuvenation. There will be a ‘Great Escape’, whereby intelligent, conservative people flee apocalyptic chaos to establish refuges of civilization in which they weather the storm of the Dark Age. Those exiled will be conservative, middle class, and white (defined very broadly), set against ‘post-liberal’ areas of mixed ethnic minorities, with some white admixture. Today, the Woke will continue to induce guilt in the white or otherwise ‘privileged’ middle-class population, but tomorrow the underclass will be the frightening majority of the Western population, and too vast in size, and offensive in character, to sustain further sympathy. Lower IQ whites, reluctant or unable to move due to the associations between low IQ and conservatism and between high IQ and migration, will simply merge into the majority non-white populations; dissolving away into extinction like the Neanderthals.

If we are on the cusp of a fundamental reorientation of the Western world in a conservative and religious way, it must seem like the world’s best kept secret. Indeed, from the perspective of the lived experience of someone in the Western world, it seems like an inexorable and unstoppable march to the left. And all the media and conventional news outlets parrot the same thing — we are moving, forever, in a progressive fashion. Those who complain about it are dinosaurs. Western Civilization has undoubtedly been moving in a direction that is irreligious and socially liberal for a long time now and this movement followed history in the West that was not liberal by any standard. Setting aside the historical antecedents for liberalism in the West, the question is why the West shifted from conservative and religious people to an ideology that abhors religion and conservative values. In the first instance, The Past Is a Future Country is an attempt to distill why this happened.

The authors posit that everyone — Westerners included — was once (and always) religious, ethnocentric, and conservative. I am not sure that I agree with that but more on that later. From the author’s perspective, these attributes were adaptive in the Darwinian sense — they made survival and propagation more likely than in their absence. We tend not to think of virtue in Darwinian terms, but virtue — in a man or in a community — is self-evidently adaptive. Delaying gratification, general intelligence, impulse control, respect for authority, sexual ethics (including monogamous marriage), and communitarian sensibilities contribute to a tribe or nation that grows, while the lack of any one of these things, or, catastrophically, all of them, contributes to a tribe’s or nation’s destruction. Piety and a belief in divine justice likewise contribute to a sense of belonging and a rationale for virtue. It does not take a genius to understand that it is easier to do hard things if there is a supernatural or communitarian reason for doing them.

It is strange to think of religiosity as a positive evolutionary trait but that is the argument. In fact, upon reflection, it makes perfect sense. The West became great because it was all of these — it was composed of pious, virtuous, and intelligent people who were tribally conscious. Without thinking of it in Darwinian terms, they were people who venerated the past (their ancestors) and made provision for the future (their children) — and the only people they did not think of were themselves. Today, it is all inverted: our age mocks the past, makes no provision for the future (because they have no children), and thinks only of themselves (as the narcissistic people that they are). In a few words, we are irreverent presentists.

The Past Is a Future Country is a proffer of how we got here — considering that liberalism is a destructive force, the authors spend time discussing how it came to predominate our Western societies. The leftward drift that we see all around us was driven by rising prosperity, education, and the collapse of infant mortality in the First World. The authors fix the beginning of this cycle as the Industrial Revolution, when constant environmental pressures began to wane, and an explosion of population began. Controversially, they also argue that maladaptive people — those who never would have survived or been allowed to breed under the harsher conditions of our ancestors — survived and reproduced in this population expansion. They essentially argue that the dystopia we have inherited in the present time is because of an excess of maladapted people propagating maladaptive ideas because life has become safer and easier. They liken us today to degenerate trust-fund babies living off the excess of our industrious parents with the caveat that we have all but exhausted the corpus of the trust sustaining our decadent lifestyle. In a sense, we have all become Paris Hilton. In that way, they treat extreme liberalism (which today is contemporary liberalism), atheism, and the host of social attitudes that accompany them as, in effect, a product of degenerative mental illness. Stated differently, the stupendous advances of the nineteenth century, which the religious and conservative version of Western Civilization created, ironically enough, allowed for an explosion of anti-social and individual extremist personality types to flourish in the aftermath.

Definitions matter: what is key here is how the authors define conservative and religious views versus liberal ones. They even admit that the new virulent multiculturalism and “Woke” views operate like a hyper-puritanical religion unto itself — with assorted dogmas, orthodoxies, heresies, saints, and sinners. For example, the modern concept of “hate speech” resembles blasphemy laws in past generations. From the outside, most of the left today are completely immune to reason or argument precisely because their moralistic views operate like a belief system as opposed to a reasoned ideology. To question them is to question their faith, not their ideas. Even if the religious are moralistic and intolerant (in the positive sense) — and even in favor of authoritarianism in some guise — the authors do not define the religious/conservative groups with respect to those values; as such, the “church” of multiculturism notwithstanding, our liberals today are not grouped with conservativism/religiosity by the authors on account of their shared (albeit vastly different) moralism or intolerance. Instead, the authors break down the differences between the two groups with respect to how they view five aspects of moral philosophy and action that themselves are grouped into two broader categories: binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, and sanctity) and individualizing moral foundations (care and fairness). In this approach, the authors rely upon the scholarship of Jonathan Haidt. Throughout the competition is between “binders” and “individualizers.” What is interesting is that today’s conservatives rate all five aspects about equally, according to the authors, while liberals tend to only value the individualizing traits. It is why the authors suppose that conservatives can empathize with liberals, but liberals cannot reciprocate, which is another invisible reason that the culture drifts leftwards.

It makes complete sense to me — setting aside the evolutionary language — why “binding” moral foundations are necessary for functioning societies. Individualizers could only predominate in a society that had been built with “binding” capital because their ideas only deconstruct and withdraw from that capital. In a sense, liberalism is parasitical and could never build a civilization itself. Assuming that it is maladaptive on the human evolutionary scale makes sense because it is obviously maladaptive on the civilizational scale. My own acceptance of an interest in “my people” — a tribal instinct, for the lack of a better phrase — fits squarely here. As I became more self-aware and revolted by liberal excesses in my own lifetime, the idea of tribe — or race or ethnicity or whatever you want to call it — has taken hold. Once the scales fell from my eyes, I thought about my family and children in a context that was tribal or racial. I do not want them accosted for being White and I came to terms with the particular gifts of my people, who are Whites or Europeans. Now, every time I hear anything suggesting antipathy towards Whites, I become that much more ethnocentric in favor of them. I am evidently not alone in this reaction; they note:

Consistent with the interpretation that there are fundamental differences between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’, it has been found that when conservatives feel cheated of a reward, they feel that they deserve, then this elevates their feelings of hostility to other ethnic groups. They are group-oriented, so cheating them is cheating their group and that is what they care about. When liberals feel cheated in the same way, it elevates their feelings of hostility to members of their own group. Liberals are ‘individualists’ who are in constant competition with other members of their own ethnic group; conservatives are ‘tribalists’ who are in constant competition with other ethnic groups.

In the view of the authors, I am then an archetype of a “binding” conservative who sees unfairness to my kind as a reason to love and build up my kind. Thus, this book, which can seem like a recitation of social science data can be deeply personal and explanatory of why we react to what we react to.

Religious-conservative people also rate highly on “caring” and “fairness”; this makes sense too because Western Civilization has always given space, to a much greater extent than elsewhere, to the individual and his unique dignity and value. This fits squarely with Kevin MacDonald’s book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, which posits the qualitative difference of European people with regard to their capacity for high trust and empathetic societies. One way to look at the maladaptation of liberalism is that it is a gross distortion of the original good of empathy and humanity of European peoples in much the same way that feminism is gross distortion of the original good with respect to how European peoples treated their women generously compared with other peoples. This is also why I resisted — for as long as I did — the very notion of tribalism because not only was I indoctrinated by the predominant liberalism of extreme individualism, but I also empathized with it.

The authors argue that when an ideology reaches twenty percent of the population, a tipping point is reached, and the ideology picks up increasing power in that opportunists join it as something akin to a bandwagon effect. This is why the switch seems so abrupt and startling. We all know that people like winners and the tipping point is an indication of winning. As one might imagine, they identify the 1960s as the period in which we reached our liberal tipping point. Cumulatively over several generations, dysgenic people — people who would have been effectively banished from earlier religious and conservative societies that valued the communal necessity of socially appropriate behavior or would have died because of a high mutational genetic load — thrived without the need for piety, virtue, or tribalism (i.e., ethnocentrism). Eventually the maladapted people took over and the culmination of the maladaptation is what we know of as contemporary liberal society.

Similar to the idea of a “winning team” and the momentum of a new ideology, the authors introduce the so-called “cultural mediation hypothesis,” which is the idea that the smartest people in each society embrace a new ideology (like liberalism or the Reformation) because they are opportunists and first to recognize the change and advantage to themselves first. The new ideology gathers momentum, and the momentum of opportunism takes on a social life itself. Another anecdote to make this opportunism point: I work with a talented White professional man who is in a leadership position in my organization. In one of our mandatory diversity seminars, he continually and obnoxiously virtue-signaled how bad White people were to the glee of the diversity commissariat. What was lost on him is that he, a White man, was dominating the discussion on the topic. He took over a diversity seminar from the putative minority facilitators. The irony of his frequent reminders to the mostly White audience to “listen” to minorities was that he was, in that very moment, not doing what he counseled. He could not help but be a leader even if he led in an obvious anti-social, self-defeating, and misanthropic, self-hating fashion. According to the authors, this man was someone who would have embraced and virtue-signaled his religious or ethnocentric “convictions” if the prevailing cultural ballast had been religious and conservative. As it was, he simply said what he was expected to say (even if with more enthusiasm and relish than was necessary). It is also a reminder that we conservatives will not need anything approaching a majority to win, as it were; there will always be intelligent opportunists waiting to join us once we hit a critical mass.

Virtue signaling is something that the authors harp on several times as a reason why this societal momentum picks up speed in one direction or another — to do it effectively, social climbers have to one-up each other with the signal of greater virtue that is more directionally extreme than the one previously stated — “competitive virtue signaling.” This is why it moves one step inexorably at a time. Parenthetically, I see this among my fellow paleo-conservative friends — in our conversations, at least at times, the dynamic is one in which we are a little more conservative after the conversation because the only thing that moves our discussion is something just a little more conservative than what was said before. In a sense, we all virtue-signal; the only difference is whose opinion we value and thus who we aim our virtue signaling towards. It will be incredible to see this dynamic reversed in the broader culture — that is, virtue signaling moving further rightwards, but that is our destiny after liberalism’s coming implosion.

Religious conservatives fit squarely with the people who built Christendom and Western Civilization in the first place; today’s liberals are a vampiric force that can only destroy it (and are destroying it). As natural destroyers and parasites who are mostly concerned with their own sense of autonomy, it further makes sense that they are anti-natalist while religious conservatives are pro-natalist. Thus, even without parsing the rhetoric and expressions of anti-natalism, we can see why religious conservatives, as normal people who care about piety, family, community, and a sometimes inchoate group loyalty, would have a fertility advantage: the latter embrace family, and liberals as the equivalent of maladapted narcissists do not. Indeed, the authors suggest that narcissism and Machiavellianism are typical “liberal” traits in present-day Western societies which corresponds with elevated rates of their psychopathology and low self-esteem. The idea that liberalism comes from a surplus of genetically maladapted people is compelling and intuitive. Simply put, it fits.

The point here is that our political and religious views are flavored, at least in part, by a genetic predisposition — and our views, such as they are, are heritable to some extent. So conservative and religious people transmit those dispositions genetically — as well as environmentally — to their offspring. The same can be said of anti-social liberals who likewise transmit their maladaptive traits to their offspring — to the extent they have them. But the issue here is that intelligence and educational attainment currently have a negative correlation with fertility — except for religious conservatives. Liberals, who have ruled intelligence and educational attainment for a long time are self-selecting themselves out of existence in the same way as the Shakers did in the nineteenth century; or, in the pithier words of the authors, “devout liberals are going the way of the dodo.” Ergo, conservatives and religious people have more children than atheists and liberals and so do the stupid and impulsive. Both realities underpin the entire analyses by the authors such that they end up predicting both a rise of a huge — and imbecilic — underclass and an eventual takeover of the elites by the fundamentally conservative and religious. But the only people breeding — the religious-conservatives and the very stupid — are doing so for vastly distinct reasons. One breeds intentionally to express a religious commandment and communal values; the other unintentionally because they cannot practice self-control, evaluate the consequences of their actions, or competently manipulate contraceptive devices. Both realities co-exist with each other. The anecdote that started this essay is germane: religious conservatives will be surrounded by a large group of stupid, impulsive, and morally challenged.

What is happening to us, however, is not without precedent — only the scale of the looming collapse is. In the cyclicality and seasonality of empires and civilization, we see birth, youth, middle age, senescence, and death. We see vitality that creates surplus followed by mediocrity that feeds off that surplus, and crisis and death when that mediocrity is forced to fend for itself. From time immemorial elites have had fewer children as they became more prosperous and self-centered in the autumns of their respective civilizations. Our cycle, however, has lasted longer because of the sheer extent of the material advancement bequeathed to us by the Industrial Revolution. Our ancestors bequeathed a material paradise of technology in every conceivable way, but, as any Christian knows, fallen or postlapsarian man will ruin a paradise as soon as he enters it. Paradoxically, it was the great height of our civilization, which itself was animated by intensely felt conservative and religious attitudes, which enabled the advances of the West in the first instance, and which has led the West to where it is today, the most depraved civilization in history. This material excess forestalled nature’s correction that destroyed societies like late-stage Rome or Athens that experienced similar sterility and decadence. The difference between us and them is that our largess was so bountiful that our descent into “maladaptation” was delayed even if it was inevitable.

The authors also argue that more people with psychopathy and other misanthropic pathologies survive and breed in this twilight period following the generations after the Industrial Revolution and this explains why so many people today seem bizarre, unhappy, or both. It is because they are all those things; perhaps we are hitting peak mutational load. Speaking of dysgenics, this collective mutational load operates alongside of an easier environment and has resulted in a decreasing overall level of intelligence that is bound to decrease further given current realities. To be clear, this is not simply an appraisal of the coming underclass — it is an indictment too of the relatively intelligent. All of us, bar none, are getting dumber with each passing generation. The explanation of how we got here, even if offered in starkly Darwinian terms, seems more than plausible:

The collapse in child mortality, and relaxation of selection pressures generally speaking, permitted even greater genetic diversity to arise, something that further exacerbated declining trust. Declining religiousness also led to the rise in influence of females, and thus a greater emphasis on ‘equality’ and ‘harm avoidance’ over systematizing and truth, a coddling moral psychology that goes far in justifying restrictions on free speech in the name of protection from hurt feelings and grim realities. The entire situation led to an increasing evolutionary mismatch, higher levels of mental illness, greater paranoia, and thus, further overall declining trust, feeding into desires to restrict free speech in order to promote ‘safe-spaces’. Declining intelligence itself meant decreasing belief in democracy, declining trust, and increased dogmatism. Genetic diversity also permitted more and more depressed and individualistic people, who would be low on trust, and black-and-white in their thinking; pushing society away from beliefs in freedom of speech and democracy. With no group-selection pressure to keep society united, and with traditional religiousness being weak, these people could hijack the culture — due to the way in which group-oriented people sympathize with individualists — pushing it in an ever-more extreme individualistic direction, and so challenging democracy and freedom of speech, because individualistic values would need to be placed ahead of even truth.

If you think everyone seems to be getting stupider, these authors agree. And I double-checked this point on my own: mainstream research now acknowledges that there is in fact a “reverse Flynn effect,” in which IQs have been declining dramatically for the last three decades. When coupled with a degenerate culture that plays openly to man’s basest instincts, we are well on our way to Mike Judge’s comedic dystopia, Idiocracy. Because the only remaining intelligent left who breed are religious-conservative (even if they are on a cognitive decline), there must be a transformation of elite class in a conservative-religious direction. But alongside of the ascendant religious-conservative elite will be a staggering underclass who will exhaust the modern Western welfare state within several decades from now. The implications for the West filled with an abundance of stupid and impulsive people is that we cannot possibly maintain the standard of living we have grown accustomed to — the accumulated capital from the advances of the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath will be fully depleted. The authors argue that we will not be intelligent enough to maintain the technology — let alone invent new ones — that will allow us to continue as we are. While the authors do not predict the precise consequences of this social breakdown (whether it takes the form of the West becoming a Third World country or simply breaking apart), they nonetheless project that things as they are cannot continue. The Western world will see a rise in religiousness and conservatism while it nonetheless deteriorates materially over the next few generations. It leads somewhere dramatically different although where that will be is not clear.

As an aside, I have a super-bright friend who said something almost verbatim regarding our future as it relates to technology. While I said I was worried about nuclear war as a final and dystopic conflagration (apropos to the Russian-Ukraine-NATO conflict), he countered that he did not think it would end that way. Going further, he said that we will eventually become so stupid that we will not even be able to maintain the existing nuclear weapon stockpile we have accumulated and the threat from nuclear war will abate from our own incompetence. He thought that after this dumbing down and loss of technical knowledge and competence, we would end up in a civilization much like the one before the Enlightenment — religious, conservative, and tribal. He — and the authors — are on to something. The future will be less technologically based because we will be too stupid to live with it — and when we become smarter again in the far-off future, another Industrial Revolution will be impossible to accomplish because we will have exhausted all the easily available resources that made the initial one possible in the first place.

The Past Is a Future Country is most interesting in its modeling and projections for the immediate future. Even if it seems that liberalism is at its most potent now, the authors contend that we have reached, in essence, “peak liberalism.” The excesses of liberalism today that should be obvious to anyone are actually signs of disintegration — like the anti-communist crusades of the 1950s were a sign of weakness before the great liberal tide. It is like what financial analysts call a “dead cat bounce,” which is an ephemerally positive market during an otherwise steep decline. It is a last gasp, in other words. What will happen — and is happening already — is that the demographic reality of rising conservatism is already taking hold. So, there will be a shift — one that will be dramatic and sudden — when the ballast permanently shifts to a religious and conservative future, which matches the way in which human beings, including in the West, previously related to each other and the world. This shift should not be confused with a superficial conservative backlash like Margeret Thatcher’s election as Prime Minster of the U.K in 1979 or Ronald Reagan’s election as President in 1980 — what they are suggesting is a world in which pre-modern and perhaps pre-Enlightenment values predominate again. Unlike those conservative cycles within a broader liberal cycle, the authors suggest, however, that Donald Trump’s election and the Brexit vote, both in 2016, were harbingers of a more fundamental shift.

I found the death of liberalism to be fascinating from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective. Again, religious conservatives are suspicious of Darwinian thought and liberal atheists love it — would the grandest irony of all be that Darwinian thought vindicates conservative religiosity and condemns liberal atheism? From the authors:

The ability to resist leftist-induced dysphoria is the new crucible of evolution. Where once the crucible of evolution was child mortality it is now Woke morality. Where evolution was formerly selecting for resistance to genetically-based diseases, the emphasis has now switched to ‘memetically’ based diseases; ideological mind viruses that induce infertility in their nonimmune hosts. Those who resist leftist ideology, and its direct and indirect inducements not to procreate, are those who survive. In significant part, this will be those who are, for mainly genetic reasons, religious and conservative.

This coming world will be profoundly religious and much more ethnocentric. The fact that we who are religious cringe at the association of Christianity and ethnocentrism is because we ourselves are so tainted by invisible liberal pretensions. But in the future, as in the past, the preservation of our tribe will be self-evidently worthwhile, and that we should have to apologize for it will seem insane, which, of course, it is. I see this now with greater clarity — and if I see it, someone who has already achieved success as a professional in a liberal, secular world, others must be seeing it too.

While this newly ascendant religious and conservative intellectual class will be indeed swamped by a massive underclass, the authors predict that something they call the new Byzantiums will emerge. These will be havens of civilization and will be necessary given the risk of overall increasing stupidity, the collapse of the welfare state (and the stupid who rely upon it), and the impoverishment of First-World conditions. They put this in stark dysgenic terms: we will be awash in rising psychopathy, criminality and violence and need to escape it. This collapse, they contend, will not be like the fall of the Roman Empire but something weightier — something like the Late Bronze Age collapse. The new Byzantiums will be places where mostly Whites and “White-adjacent” minorities will bind together with religion and conservativism predominating in something like a wasteland straight of The Walking Dead (sans the zombies).

End Part 2 of 3.

Thoughts on “The Past Is a Future Country. The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution,” Part 1: My Awakening

Strong men create good times,
Good times create weak men,
Weak men create bad times, and
Bad times create strong men.

The Past Is a Future Country. The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution
Edward Dutton & J.O.A. Rayner-Hilles
Societas, 2022

The end is nigh …

*         *         *

Part I: My Awakening

The world is falling apart: a simple anecdote.

My family lives in a large exurb outside of a major American city. Our town is sizable — it is both economically and demographically diverse. It is also very safe. Across the United States, there are similar towns outside of every major city in that it represents a middle point — somewhere in between rich and hoity-toity towns and towns that are depressed and dangerous. It is firmly a middle-class town albeit with sizable pockets of poverty, the latter phenomenon exacerbated by a large and recent infusion of illegal immigrants. Our children, like most, play youth sports. One of the town fields is located near one of these pockets of poverty that is mostly comprised of government subsidized housing. On a random Sunday afternoon last year, one of our children played in a sports contest on that field — the only people watching were the parents and families of the participants. Close to the field was the thing that is both the bane and salvation of every sports parent: a portable toilet (or “Porta Potti”). On this otherwise unremarkable day, a swarm of fifteen or so minority children — aged between ten to fifteen — emerged from the housing development and began hitting the Porta Potti with an aluminum baseball bat every time an unfortunate parent used it. It was clear that this was a type of dangerous game to these children — something they had done before — as they wildly guffawed with each strike of the bat. I can only imagine what the experience was for the parent inside of the thing. The field was big enough such that there were not enough people around it to dissuade the “gang” — after all, no one wants to watch a sporting event near the Porta Potti. My wife and I looked on in disbelief as we watched this happen from a distance to a few unsuspecting parents. Eventually, I walked over to the Porta Potti and stood a kind of silent guard over it for the duration of the game. The “gang” was most unhappy, and I thought it possible that the next target for the baseball bat might be me. Other than scowling and aggressive glances, however, my presence next to the Porta Potti ended that afternoon’s hijinks.

On the way home from the event, the reality of such behavior dismayed my wife and me. Perchance I am overstating it, but there was a feral and dehumanized aspect to these children in the way that they took glee in terrorizing people in vulnerable positions. This was removed from childish antics by kind, not degree. There was something so unseemly about it that it felt a little like Western civilization had cracked in the manner of something like Clockwork Orange. It is not an exaggeration to say that we have never looked at our town the same way after that experience. Parenthetically, it fits together with a noticeably increasing baser and more imbecilic feature of many of the people of the community in which I live. Without any hyperbole, a walk in our local suburban mall today reveals a seeming degeneracy and indecency, culturally and physically, that has appeared as if one waved an instantaneous dysgenic magic wand.

It is an astounding thing.

Never in my life have I experienced directly “White Flight” — but I have a sense now of what motivated it in urban areas during the 1950s and 60s. I think that may change, and areas once considered immune from that phenomenon in the United States, like middle-class American suburbs, are now changing in a way that might mirror what happened in American urban areas some sixty years ago.

*         *         *         *

One of the ironclad ideological laws that has spanned my entire political life in the United States is that the culture only moves in one direction — leftwards. As a political contrarian and conservative, I have watched American culture descend one depressing rung of debasement after another. Even as my adult life has spanned a full generation, I am amazed and confounded by how quickly and oppressively the culture has sunk into ever greater displays of depravity and lawlessness. Without belaboring it — because if what I am saying is not self-evident, no amount of elaboration will suffice — the culture has fully embraced a self-destructive nihilism and hedonism that is both appalling and unsustainable. Pornography, homosexuality, fornication, infidelity, feminism, abortion, transgenderism, atheism, blasphemy, and every other sort of political and social pathology are not merely tolerated — they are celebrated by a decadent elite who rules the government, media, entertainment, and educational establishments. Add to this an open and revolting attack on the historic stock of the country (i.e., Whites or ethnic Europeans) in which discrimination against them and their children is based solely on their ancestors’ alleged crimes. Alongside the grievance culture, the debased elites intentionally open the borders to Third World illegal immigration to “brown” the country as both a vote-gathering ploy and to punish the historic stock’s alleged colonialism and exploitation of the Third World. And ever more outrageously does it drift — yesterday’s shock (e.g., gay “marriage”) looks anodyne compared to today’s shock (e.g., “sex change” operations for children). Yesterday’s demand for a “color-blind” society has given way to today’s “Woke” demand for open borders, minority reparations, and institutionalized discrimination against White Americans. Yesterday’s plea for tolerance of sexual deviance has become today’s demand for categorical social conformity in favor of the basest forms of degeneracy. What comes next in this diabolical descent is hard to predict other than it will be something even more wicked or racially charged.

If the culture’s deterioration were not enough, the nihilistic guardians of this cultural destruction do everything in their incredible power to ostracize, censor, and destroy that segment of the population resistant to these cultural “innovations” and otherwise refuse to apologize for their continued existence. Simply stated, contrary views to the predominant liberal-left orthodoxy are to be crushed. We are the people famously mocked by then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008 as follows: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” We are the people then-candidate Hilary Clinton labeled as the “deplorables.”  Our liberal masters deride vital social institutions like traditional marriage and family, stay-at-home mothers, regular church attendance, social homogeneity (and the preference for it), and patriotism as anachronisms of ignorance, oppression, superstition, and violence. We who celebrate our ancestors for the contribution they made as explorers, inventors, philosophers, theologians, artists, scientists, musicians, or warriors are derided as racists who dare to live without the burden of White Guilt that those same elites insist that we wallow in — in what amounts to a demand that we offer a never-ending apology to the automatically righteous “People of Color.” The moorings of Western Civilization — and all that binds it in blood, temperament, and history — are coming undone with shocking speed. As a lifelong political junkie and conservative, I am a firsthand witness to the dreadful collapse in real time.

It cannot go on like this much longer — and it will not.

*         *         *

Words are difficult for me to summon to convey adequately the revulsion I hold for what my country and the broader West has become — I have become a stranger in a bizarre land. As the culture has hurtled downward into more disturbing displays of anti-social behavior, stupidity, and vice, my views have become more hardened as a result. I have evolved, as it were, into something more retrograde. It is a far place from where I started: my first political inklings were conventionally conservative and communitarian. At its heart, as a naïve young man, I wished to live in a country where law-abiding people got along, venerated the traditions of family and nation, and were inculcated with the virtues of thrift, hard work, and respect. These were the values my parents taught me. I anchored these communitarian hopes to a belief in the “American Way,” which was implicitly an endorsement of the classical liberal antecedents of Americanism itself. Thus, when I was young, I saw the American flag as embodying all these hopes. To put a bow on it: all of it can be summed up in my admiration for everything that President Ronald Reagan represented at the time. He was the personification of my convictions and my hope for the U.S. as a young man.

As the country has changed, so have I. My conventional conservatism gave way to something different as I grew older. The belief in classical liberalism as part of my patriotic fervor has waned; hence, my belief in Americanism as an ideology has all but vanished. I am more Catholic, more European, and more ancient in my political thinking now. Blood, soil, and faith animate my political thought much more than the promise of constitutional government; ergo, it is the people and their values and virtues — and not the system — that matters. Call me a “paleo-conservative,” “alt-right,” or the “dissident right,” but whatever pejorative I am called, it means that my communitarian impulses found a home in a recognition that I belong to a people (broadly European) with a long and storied shared culture and civilization — and a predicate for any successful society depends, at least in part, on the broad homogeneity and shared culture of that society. To put it more crudely, race, for the lack of a better word, became real to me as a part of my political thought. That, of course, makes me liable for the current political heresy of “racism” — especially when one considers that my view of race, broadly speaking, now includes a preference for political existence that is racially homogeneous as opposed to heterogeneous. Not only do I not think that “diversity is our strength,” I dare to think that diversity and pluralism, which are exponentially expanding under the rule of our present elites, are invitations to social chaos and declining levels of social trust and cohesion. To be sure, race is not an idol for me or a mechanism for supremacist thinking — nor could it ever be. Rather, I accept the notion that relative racial homogeneity is necessary for a functioning society. The collapse of American society is driven, at least in significant part, by increasing diversity and the dilution of America’s European stock. In present terms, there are few statements that are more retrograde than this one.

The crucible for my political evolution has been two-fold — first, I became a traditional Catholic years ago, which, by its nature, carries with it a thoroughgoing critique of Americanism as an extension and instantiation of Enlightenment thought. Second, I lived through — and am living through — the fever pitch of anti-White insanity right now. The Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 and the general lawlessness that has continued since radicalized me on the question of race in a way that I neither sought nor invited. It is amazing what the concentrated hate of a people — White people — does to a constituent of those same people. It makes them inevitably come to terms with their corporate identity. Even if it had been something that I consciously refused to countenance for the entirety of my prior life, the issue found me. No, I am hated because I am White and so are others because they are White. I am bombarded with messages, subtle and not-so-subtle, that I belong to an especially odious category of human beings on account of my Whiteness. Setting aside that such an accusation is false and malicious, it has a boomerang effect. The net impact of all this hate that has rained down upon my kind — Whites — and how that hate has been mainstreamed over the last decade has forced a moral reckoning in my soul. It is as if I screamed in frustration that I am not ashamed of myself or my heritage — I am proud to be of European blood and, when pushed, I am proud of the immense accomplishments of my people. If I am “racist” because of these thoughts — if I am odious and retrograde for these opinions — my creation as such has only the haters to blame. Quite simply, without the vitriol against me or my kind, I would have never reached this point. I surmise that if I feel this way — even in the face of internal pressures of my mind to ignore it — others have been similarly changed by it as well. Our elites are creating a backlash White identity movement by their racism.

To be sure, traditional Catholicism is silent on the question of race or racial homogeneity. “Liberal Catholicism” spouts that pluralism and diversity are religious commandments, and liberal churchmen opine that support for “open borders” is not merely a political good but a moral command. Setting aside the theological discussion of Christianity’s position on the question of ethnos or race, suffice it to say from my perspective, the only affirmative obligation that Christianity imposes is the belief that God created all men in His image and likeness and all men share an equal dignity before Him and His Church. But that view, which is one to which I readily accede, does not command, as an article of faith, that the tribes and nations of the earth must meld into a single amorphous coffee-colored people, or, more pointedly, that the conscious preservation of a particular tribe or nation is, in and of itself, a sin. Not only do I not scruple over my preference for racial homogeneity as a predicate for social and political cohesion or even the comfort I feel with my own, but I also find the liberal supposition of my “sin” in preferring it to be laughable. Put more bluntly, I reject the moralizing on this topic from the same people who say I must celebrate sodomy or feminism. My views on race — as well as my views on about everything else — are the same as how intelligent Westerners believed a century ago; ergo, I worship like them, think like them, raise my family like them, and hope like them. Their way of life was self-evidently better than our way of life today even if we have more technological “bells and whistles.” If I am going to follow an example of life, better theirs than the degenerate leaders and culture of today.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but feel as if I have voluntarily made myself into a dinosaur. Not only have I rebelled against every liberalizing trend, but I have also rebelled against them with greater intensity as I have aged. While I am no genius, I am an educated and successful professional in the United States. Being a milquetoast liberal would have made my life “easier,” as it were, because I would have simply followed the current that everyone in my professional class appears to have done. I would have dutifully put pronouns in my LinkedIn profile like everyone else; I would have stopped having children at the conformist number of two and sent my erstwhile employable spouse back to work; I would have enjoyed the creature comforts that come with two professional incomes at the beginning of the twenty-first century in the developed world. And more to the point, I would not have had to continuously bite my tongue when liberal after liberal in my professional circles out-virtue-signaled each other with one notion more ridiculous than the other. I could have leaned into the smugness that comes with guilt-free first-class air travel because I assiduously recycle and hate Donald Trump. Yes, life would have been easier as a beta male and simp. Perhaps I would have had to become a vegetarian, but the quinoa salad is delicious.

But alas I could not stomach it. Now, this is not to say I am heroic — far from it. I do not advertise my culturally seditious thought — I am mostly silent in professional settings with respect to what I think. Indeed, my colleagues would be positively horrified if they knew the full depth of my opinions about them and the world. I have chosen a middle path of resistance: I work silently in their world and offer resistance where and when I can without overtly betraying just how subversive my thought really is. In the confines of my home — and in the confines of the pew before God — I am freer to be myself without the charade. With my friends of similar thinking, and there are many in my life, I am free to unload on what I think. And, of course, there is the outlet of writing, which is the apogee of my ability to disentangle my thoughts about the dystopic world I inherited from my parents.

All of this is said to underscore the point that notwithstanding the ease of accommodation — the allure of just getting along with the world in obedience to its dictates — I just cannot do it because I am a natural contrarian. I did not ask to be one, but I take comfort in it all the same. To put it in very trite terms, being on the winning team is less important to me than being on the right team. And, for whatever reason, God gave me the gumption to say the magic word of ‘no’ even if — and especially if — pressure is applied to me to force a ‘yes’. This obviously does not make me a saint, but it is the only way that I know to live.

The contrarian’s lot is a lonely one; whether he is culpable for it or not, there he is, by himself, against the world. While I have come to accept the social sentence of intellectual and moral isolation and disempowerment that comes from being a contrarian against today’s inexorable liberal tide, I do not relish it. That said, I have recently read something that promised relief from my isolation even if that relief would come during social chaos and political breakdown.

Excerpts from Léon Degrelle and Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe Addressed to the Youth of Europe

Messages to the Youth of Europe: Prince Friedrich Christian & Léon Degrelle
Translated and edited by Alexander Jacob
Uthwita Press, 2024

Léon Degrelle (1906–1994) began his career in Belgium as a Catholic journalist who worked for the conservative Catholic periodical Christus Rex. In 1935 he founded the populist Rexist Party, morphed from Christus Rex, which was increasingly influenced by Italian Fascist doctrines. When the Germans invaded Belgium in 1940, the Rexists were mostly in favor of the German presence in Belgium, even though they had earlier advertised a position of neutrality in the war. Consequently, along with various Communist groups, Rexists too were arrested in May 1940 as anti-national elements and imprisoned first in Belgium and later in France. Degrelle was spared extreme persecution on account of the belief of the French that he may be useful in providing them information regarding Hitler. When he was freed in July 1940, Degrelle tended towards an increasing devotion to National Socialist ideals. Finally, when the Germans undertook their invasion of Russia in June 1941, he volunteered, as a mere corporal, in the German army in its fight against Communism.

Degrelle demonstrated extraordinary courage during the war and was decorated with the Iron Cross in 1942. Degrelle’s ‘Légion Wallonie’ was also transformed into the Wallonie Division of the SS in June 1943 but only after Degrelle had signed an agreement with Himmler that the Walloons, whose autonomy he had earlier insisted on, would eventually be incorporated into the Germanic Reich.[1] With the liberation of Belgium in September 1944, the Rexist Party was banned and, at the end of the Second World War, many of its members were imprisoned or executed.

However, Degrelle had, in January 1944, been promoted Hauptsturmführer and decorated in Berlin by Hitler with the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross. In April 1944 he was promoted Sturmbannführer and in August of that year received, again directly from Hitler, the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. In November 1944, he was named Volksführer der Wallonen by Hitler.

At the end of the war, in April 1945, Degrelle — whose SS Division Wallonie had been fighting in Pomerania in February 1945 — managed to get away to Norway, where he found a Heinkel jet in Oslo in which he was able to fly to Spain. In Spain he succeeded in obtaining protection from persecution by Franco’s government largely because the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak and Franco were not able to agree on the conditions under which Degrelle would be extradited to Belgium.

During his ‘retirement,’ Degrelle maintained contact with other SS officers like Otto Skorzeny (1908–1975) and also supported several neo-Fascist movements and nationalists like Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Degrelle wrote several works before, during, and after the Second World War. In Spain he wrote, among other works, a detailed account of the Soviet campaign, La Campagne de Russie 1941–1945 (1949), Hitler pour mille ans (1969) and an unfinished series of works on Hitler called Le Siècle d’Hitler of which nine volumes were planned but only five have been published. Degrelle’s accounts of Germany’s Russian campaign in the first two works are indeed worthy contributions to the war literature of the last century.

The present pamphlet, written in 1992, is addressed to the young people of Europe focuses on the political dishonesty and terrorist tactics of the so-called democracy established at the end of the war by the Anglo-American victors as well as on the ruthless greed of the hyper-capitalism which they seek to impose on the world. In this context, Degrelle particularly points to the duplicities of the Americans during the First Gulf War and the Yugoslav Wars. In Russia, the fall of Communism has created a new field of operations for the international drug mafia which threatens to corrupt European society in tandem with the corporate representatives of American capitalism. The essential challenge facing the European youth today is to recognize and surmount the false attractions of the predominantly urban world of capitalism. This it can do only by returning to the virtues of a society based essentially on a strong agrarian foundation. At the same time, it must also master the technology of the present and future if it wishes to constitute a new elite that, unlike the technocrats of the present-day, will be able to bring about not only the unification of Europe but also its spiritual elevation and ennoblement.

*   *   *

From Léon Degrelle, An Appeal to Young Europeans (1992):

Ch. I – Against the democratic jokers

We also were twenty years old once. Our days will not return. But our minds, our hearts, are still vibrating with ideas and spiritual impetuses which no doubt inflame you still, you, our young European comrades of today.

Fervent nationalists, we stirred the soul of our fatherland to the depths of its conscience. We wished to remove it from the political swamps in which it suffocated, give it faith in its mission, reestablish order in its institutions, reestablish social justice in an indissoluble collaboration of the classes and, above all, realize the revolution of souls that would free men from an invading materialism.

Then, in June 1941, sounding from bell-tower to bell-tower, the hour of great European possibilities rang out.

A simple soldier, then corporal, then sergeant, then officer, then commander of the 28th Division of the Waffen SS Wallonie, I had, like hundreds of thousands of volunteers of our old continent, helped, on the Eastern Front, in the creation, little understood in the beginning but inevitable, of a Europe federating the diverse but complementary forces of our fatherlands. They were at that time threatened with death by Soviet Communism determined, since 1917, to pass under its whip all the peoples of the world.

To be sure, in the beginning, we, the non-German combatants, were all very different from one country to another: the Spanish from the Norwegians, the French from the Bosnians, the Dutch from the Estonians. But quickly the hardships, the sufferings, brought us together. Then it sealed our unity.

Friendship, but diversity. Europe breathed in us. After the torment, each of our fatherlands, proud of the honor of its arms and the sacrifice of its dead, would have caused the personality of its people to radiate and be magnified in the bouquet of our reunited civilizations.

Defeated, covering our drums, we saw our nascent Europe of 1942 shriveled after 1945 in banality and mediocrity, delivering itself desperately – without even guessing its ephemeral fragility – to a furious need to have fun.

The latter tarnished its soul. It disintegrated its moral and spiritual characteristics.

Tomorrow everything will have to be recreated.

*   *   *

For this devotion to our fatherlands and to the Europe that will federate them we, the old men of the Second World War, paid a terribly high cost. We were bruised, we received a thousand blows, experienced streams of bitterness. They dragged us  through the mud. Our most senior people were assassinated. We were hunted everywhere with a demoniacal rage. But our faith has remained intact. Not only that but, in enduring that, we do not regret anything. In spite of our aged bodies, if the opportunity to raise our flags were to return, we will march to our duty without impetuosity, with the same vigor, the same pleasure and the same unshakeable resolution.

If we must still champ at the bit at present buried in an exile as interminable as it is cruel, we remain, we will remain, dear comrades of Europe, your companions until our last breath.

*   *   *

To tell the truth, you too do not have an easy life today. In every country, busy and servile judges, cackling, gurgling, pursue you with their skirts fluttering. They reinvent the civil code and the penal code every day to discover – democratically, of course! – new pretexts allowing them to trap you in their jails, and to overwhelm under inscrutable fines those who do not agree to piously kiss the feet of the sacrosanct virago that is their worthless ‘democracy.’

In fact, the entire acrobatic system of parliamentarism rests on the maintenance of its rituals. In this brigandry of voting somnambulists, hundreds of members of parliament are elected, or re-elected, only by supporting themselves on a preliminary polling of millions, of hundreds of millions, or even billions, who ensure the survival and the financial conditioning of their electoral machinery.

The crowds, bored, believe less and less in these farces where one must give a lot in order to get a little.

Tracked down to their cottages, the troop of politicians – this is seen everywhere – begin to bark. They debate about thorns. One votes increasingly less because one no longer believes, anywhere, these flashy shows.

One does not bray with the asses any more; in the new freed states of the east, in Poland, which should still be surprised about its very recent ‘democratic’ gift, 65 percent of the public did not go to vote! The same in Hungary! As for Lebanon, the voters said they were on strike! In 1992 France, only 18 percent of the voters – Socialists – constituted by themselves the official base of the government. It is, besides, the son of a Ukrainian Jew[2] flanked by the son of another Jew extracted from the Polish ghettos who have granted themselves the responsibility of ensuring the happiness of a stupefied France.

*   *   *

These good-for-nothings with crooked intellects defend with an almost ridiculous fury their increasingly shaky power.

But if you dare to tell them to their face that their governmental teams are papered with false invoices and fed on extortions covered in the blood of hemophiliacs, that, in Belgium notably, a Socialist ex-prime minister called Cools,[3] with a too greedy paw, caused himself to be shot by a hitman of one of his ministerial colleagues specialized in rackets, you will be considered straightaway as a ‘fascist criminal.’

To remark that nine-tenths of the members of parliament, unknown and incompetent, do not serve any purpose except to pocket sumptuous emoluments makes you an intolerable killjoy.

The opponents who denounce the sterility of the prattle of the assemblies with three hundred, four hundred, or five hundred heads (most often empty) are forbidden all constructive access to the television, thus to the huge meetings where they could enlighten the cheated public.

In order to defend their democratic virginity in front of the stupid masses, the governmental intriguers pompously decorating their paunches with big official blue, white and red ribbons stir up hordes of multiracial and multi-colored parasites who have come chaotically from their burnt deserts!

*   *   *

Everywhere politically, socially, economically, morally, it is a mess; 68 percent of the French, according to the last press surveys, say that they are sickened.

Every country is overburdened with crazy taxes that kill every desire to create something new.

Twenty thousand irresponsible and haughty functionaries, that nobody elected, deck with their impotence the shaky semi-Europe of an autocratic Common Market, tossed around in repeated crises, choked fully by the orders of the trade-union potentates wielding demagogic firecrackers.

Only rotten eggs can be laid there.

A braggart, the Common Market drags piteously behind its tomfoolery sixteen million unemployed people who are beyond help.

You, young boys, young girls of real Europe, you wish to substitute for this waste and this ruinous swindle a union of healthy states, under the authority of a true leader, loved, respected and chosen freely by the people.

It will be socially just and racially protected.

It alone will put an end to the arbitrary domination, the persecutions and the bickering of usurpers who are not worth even the water that they drink and who have profited from the defeat of 1945 to boast and lie every day, to make the nations stupid and tame them.

*   *   *

But, to tamper with the omnipotence of the ‘democratic’ pashas, brewing intrigues in their mound of snail-shells, is to play with dynamite. Often you must have had it up to here to have to brave so many spongers and vagabonds. That does not matter, you have to confront, with an unshakeable constancy, and never forget yourself. The people should know that our doctrine – responsibility, endurance, the cleanliness and competence of a strong power, intelligent cooperation of the classes, exaltation of the fundamental virtues of the society – is necessary. Life is not worth anything unless it is directed towards perfection and towards greatness. We believe in the scintillation of the stars.

The manhunt that you experience at the end of this century, the tortures that you must endure, we, your elders, have known just like you, or even perhaps more than you. We also were deprived many times of the use of public liberties. Our courage could have been blunted. Even though a million Belgians, for example, had chosen Rexism and, in 1936, thirty-three members of parliament and senators had, under my banner, been democratically elected under universal suffrage, we were never able to use a single time, from 1936 to 1940, the official radio which was at the disposition of all the parties haunting the parliamentary house!

Such was, already before the Second World War, the imbecile intolerance and the intellectual exclusion in the ‘democracies’!

Even at that time we were pariahs because we wished to substitute for a corrupt, anarchic and ruinous regime a clean, strong and popular state.

And also because – the worst crime! – we refused to be accomplices in the unleashing of a “useless and imbecile” (dixit Spaak)[4] Second World War, the one which the firebrands of Marxism and of International Jewry, supported by a stateless hyper-capitalism with canine appetites, imposed, through hatred and fear, on Europe in September 1939.

*   *   *

We had to confront this enormous civil war, especially when Communism set out towards our Western countries determined to convert the bloodied Europe of 1940–1941 into its select repast.

We fought hard, offered for terrible years our youth and our blood. We knew the cold, hunger and interminable sufferings in the frozen expanses of the Eastern Front. Several millions of combat comrades fell. Thousands of others, after so many sacrifices, endured for years the horrors of prisons in their own fatherlands.

The crooks of that which is called ‘democracy’ often speak to the duped of the cruelties of that time. And take great care to have their adversaries suffer them!

In cruelties it is indeed the USSR, the very dear ally, who, beating all records, had perpetrated them since 1917, in dozens of millions, on its own soil!

The English, the first comers from the Atlantic, and the American newcomers had tried their hand by massacring, in the new USA, more than four million Indians (200,000 survivors out of 5 million) in order to extirpate this race through this enormous genocide. It is they, besides, who had also branded several million Blacks in order to stamp their slavery on their skin.

They had inaugurated, in Europe and Asia, between 1941 and 1945, their unique war tactic of the twentieth century: terrorism, massacring hundreds of thousands of civilians in their gigantic bombings in Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin, Dresden, and then in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is they too who, after 8 May, 1945, delivered to the tyranny of the Soviets, for close to fifty years, the hundreds of millions of our compatriots of the east!

It is they again who, in 1945 and 1946, caused a million German prisoners to perish of hunger in their camps in the Reich and France when their depots overflowed with deliberately unused food.

It is they, finally, who, after the war, permitted several million fleeing civilians, Prussians, Silesians, Germans, Sudeten folk, to be exterminated in the course of a terribly savage ‘ethnic cleansing’!

The Americans, the English – and their Russian friends recently whitewashed in the laundromat! – may denounce the racism of the Serbs murdering the civilian populations of Croatia and Bosnia in order to possess ‘racially purged’ territories again, but it is only the mathematical repetition of the exterminations that the ‘democracies’ had deployed during the genocide of more than four million Indians, and then, after the Second World War, on the lands confiscated from the German state! One knows at present the horrible figures: nearly 2,280,000 refugees from the Reich perished on their way to exile, dying of hunger or murdered by the Soviets and their henchmen; 80,000 others disappeared; more than a million survivors were deported to Siberia. The historian Jacques de Launay has narrated in detail these abominations in his famous book, La Grande Débâcle.[5]

One understands that, in Croatia and Bosnia, in 1992, the Americans and the English – the Russians keeping a low profile! – reacted against the Yugoslav conquerors only by resorting to denial. What the Serbs did they and their dear Soviet allies had done several times and on a large scale, or had allowed to happen! Their hypocritical tears were those of old crocodiles. The Serbs, by emptying the lands that they invaded of their civilian populations, in 1992, had been only their humble imitators!

Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt had been their masters, their master-killers, of the first half of the twentieth century.


Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe (1906-83) was the youngest son of Prince Georg of Schaumburg-Lippe and Princess Marie-Anne of Saxe-Altenburg. Appalled at the quick abdications of the German princes during the German Revolution of 1918-19, and the compromises entered into by the latter, Friedrich Christian, like his brother Prince Stephan, decided to join the National Socialist Party and became a member of it officially in 1929. In fact, ten members in all of the royal house of Schaumburg-Lippe joined the party.[6]

Hitler appointed most of the royal adherents of National Socialism to the SA (Sturmabteilung) since he wished to include in it members of all sections of German society. Friedrich Christian espoused the leftist, socialist cause and considered the National Socialist party to be the ‘true heirs of the old nobility’ since he believed that it had a closer contact with the people.[7] He worked closely with Dr. Joseph Goebbels in the newly created Ministry of Public Education and Propaganda and became his adjutant in April 1933.

During the war, Hitler grew increasingly suspicious of the aristocratic members in his party, whom he feared for their potentially dangerous international contacts. Through Goebbels’ personal mediation, however, Friedrich Christian was able to retain his position, although he resigned from the SA in July 1944.

After the war Friedrich Christian was interned in the Soviet occupation zone until 1948 and cleared in the Denazification process in 1950. He was also brought in to the Nuremberg trials in 1947 to testify in some of the trials of high-ranking war criminals.

Even after the war, Friedrich Christian remained loyal to the principles of National Socialism and published several works during and after the Third Reich. These include [Where Were the Aristocrats?] (Berlin, 1934); Deutsche Sozialisten am Werk. Ein sozialistisches Bekenntnis deutscher Männer [German Socialists at Work] (Berlin, 1935); the autobiographical Zwischen Krone und Kerker [Between the Crown and Prison] (Wiesbaden, 1952); a biography of Goebbels, “Dr. G.” Ein Porträt des Propagandaministers (Wiesbaden, 1964); and War Hitler ein Diktator? [Was Hitler a Dictator?] (Kathagen, 1976).

The present speech focuses on the harm done to the German people after the war by various forms of enemy propaganda whose ulterior aim is to sustain the unnatural materialism of Marxism for the benefit of international Capitalism. Exposing the harmful artificiality of the attractions of the present world the prince exhorts his youthful audience to develop instead a socialism that corresponds to their own nature as Germans and to Nature in general.


From Prince Friedrich Christian of Schaumburg-Lippe’s 1967 speech at the University of Marburg, “If I were 18 today”:

Today as an 18 year-old I would be of the opinion that I am standing along with my generation at the beginning of a new epoch of German history. And that for the future of my people the best of the history of my fatherland is indeed good enough. One who must and wishes to begin anew needs, much more than anybody else, experiences and models. And indeed not from anywhere but from his own treasure-chest!

But what does one do? German youth of today should not have toy soldiers. No German ones at any rate. One only needs to look into the toy shops to know in what direction the wind is blowing. For boys, these shops  offer masses of Indians and American soldiers and knights from the Middle Ages.

For German girls, ‘sex dolls’ and negro dolls are recommended in German shops.

It has already become hard to buy the world-famous German fairy tale and saga books for our children. Grimm’s, Hauff’s and Andersen’s fairy tales, the Nibelung sagas, the Amelungen sagas, the Grail narrative, and so many others. But, on the other hand, countless books about Indians and gangster stories are to be had.

Has it not struck you yet, you 18-year-old of today, that for years now the illustrated magazines in Germany present whenever they can reports of royal weddings? Certain families are admired as if they still had something to say — as if they are still reigning. But the spirit that fills the other pages of the same papers is a very different one. It is much rather the spirit of those people by whom these very families were once driven away. How do you explain that, you 18-year-old? As a distraction strategy? Then perhaps you may be right.

Our families have for many centuries represented the state. For me it has always and under the most diverse circumstances been something taken for granted to respect the state as such fully and completely. To the state means to insult the people. That was always my conception. Monarchy, republic and others are different forms of the state, state-forms, and as such less significant than the state itself. The relationship of the citizen to the state-form can change and be different — but not to the state as such, unless the citizen is an anarchist. The attitude of the state to its citizens thinking and acting in this way must naturally be a corresponding one. The greatest of the kings of Prussia was proud, as is well-known, to call himself ‘the first servant of the state.’15

If I were an 18-year-old today I would certainly think in this way — but the state would perhaps welcome this attitude of mine but not understand it. Many of my fellow citizens would reprimand me as a reactionary for that reason.

Without a respectful attitude towards the state an orderly society is not possible. The people and the state together form the foundation of the nation. Serving the state is the most integral way of serving the people.

But all that presupposes that the state is conducted in a corresponding manner, and politics is there to take care of that.

The leadership of the state is a matter of individual responsibility and not of anonymous strategy.

One who thinks that he has to lead his state with computer- and market-research proves thereby that he lacks the consciousness of responsibility, the civil courage for this highest task. He is not worthy of the trust of his people, which can never be established solely through expressions of one’s opinions and machines. Indeed, in decisive phases of the life of the community it is not a matter of the recognition and realization of a status but of dynamic forces of very changeable and at least initially incalculable intensity.

One who thinks he is capable of leading men by leaving men out as much as possible is inhuman and, therewith, a great danger for mankind. We are approaching an epoch in which this problem is for the first time in the history of mankind becoming eminently significant. The Marxist-materialist view that is currently still ruling the thinking of the masses is, in this connection, a great danger for mankind.

For us Germans — the people of poets and thinkers — therefore the general egalitarianism and disrespect of models, of the heroic, of geniuses, originating from Marx is especially dangerous.

Daily life in Western Europe is today determined by Marxist-materialistic thought — on Sundays and holidays one borrows for oneself the remains of the glory of those ages that one was once ready to throw overboard. How would a thinking youth of today understand that? It is indeed inconceivable.

It would be good to be clear on the fact that the cultured nations of the Western world are for the most part ruled not by old men but by very old men. And that at a time when everything pushes forward to a new and better order, because the old is completely opposed to progress.

No wonder that all parties vie for the favor of the youth in a striking manner even though it would of course be thinkable that a youth that is revolutionary in the best sense of the word generally would not wish to have anything more to do with parties of either the old or new style.

For this youth is far too removed from Kaiser Wilhelm — and Ebert[9] and Thälmann[10] — and Hitler — yes, even from Adenauer — to be able to connect with any of them. If it has the capacity to recognize the situation, it will rip the masks from all the reactionaries from the Left to the Right with joyful youthful vigor — and proceed from the only basis that was always and is under all circumstances the natural one: One’s own people. Then it will wipe away therewith also the long moth-eaten concepts of ‘left’ and ‘right’ and ‘center’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal,’ etc. because in this modern world only the people as a whole — as a community — can exist. The questions that will have to be decided tomorrow are always about the entire people — and not about individual parties. So much more will every people have to establish themselves among other peoples so that thereby mankind as a whole can also be helped.

If I were 18 years old today, I would be able to easily determine that those of more or less the same age have similar views in any context. And indeed, significantly, not only in Germany – East and West – but also in other countries. And these views are not really related to what is called politics today, which is only political strategy. These views are directed more or less consciously against the older age groups. And, interestingly, not on account of their past but on account of their present.

Today as an 18-year-old I would have the feeling of living in a straitjacket. A condition that is so much more oppressive in that — considered from a purely materialistic point of view — I feel well or even very well, or too well, in this straitjacket. This straitjacket is the present-day order. In every context. In good as well as bad. It is precisely that which Communism needs in order to make me an anarchist. But, on the other hand, I bristle in a way that is quite understandable. However, nobody helps me here. That which the others offer me as help is always, grotesquely, the straitjacket itself, that is, the system of wealth Which is basically not a social order at all because it lost its sovereignty — through the victory of materialism.

I feel this social order as a straitjacket because I am through it captured by a system that abuses my life. I am in this system not a man but a number. That corresponds to the purely materialistic view of the masses and their dictators. I cannot in any way live as I wish to. The more people gabble about freedom the more illusory is the latter. In every context I become a consumer, a consumer of mass products. Of more or less artificially produced food that harms our health. Of the breathing of air that is corrupted, just like the water that I drink. Of objects of enjoyment of the most diverse sorts which I am recruited to through a state-subsidized advertising even though they are addictive, me of my decision over my own body, and are more or less poisonous. Nobody protects me from life in nerve-destroying noise, in senseless restlessness, in the maze of clauses, forms, jurisdictions. Nowhere and never can I be through my own will where I would like to be – after 25 years even my corpse can be dislodged from the cemetery. My whole life long the state takes a major part of the income of my work, of that for which I wear out my body and soul, to finance things which I will perhaps never experience and which, in some circumstances, even entirely contradict my convictions, my life, the actual interests of my family. I am the slave of a confection that is not dictated by natural taste and Nature-given necessities but by the sale of goods and which I must accept even if it would turn me into a clown. Even opinion has been turned into a consumer product. Nobody tells me where it has been fabricated. Its only advantage is that it is cheap. Since all obtain the same opinion automatically it is extremely strenuous and even dangerous to complain about it. Hundreds of millions of men could in this way have one opinion – if that were not so, they would have none – but they must have one and indeed a certain one – so that they may demand that which is offered. A Satanic circle – in the ‘free world.’ In every context: Earlier the supply was directed to the demand – today the demand is oriented to the supply.

If a person breaks out of this circle – for example, in politics – then he is called a ‘radical’ and that is supposed to mean: Against everybody. In truth it means: Against all who hold on to the old order because they fear a better one – or already consider it as no longer possible.

If I were 18 and thus had my life before me, this condition would infuriate me much more than now. I would recognize that my enemies are the enemies of my existence and that of my relatives and my people. That it is not at all a question of different opinions, of social estates or class differences, of social questions in the traditional sense, of religious faiths, labor unions, parties – but of existing or not existing. Henceforth, to be a Socialist means to preserve men from their biological annihilation. That lends politics an entirely different visage. In this way the Socialist becomes that which he originally wished to be – the enemy of Capitalism – thus, against the abuse of capital. For this battle neither capitalist trade unions nor capitalist churches are suited. They are basically to blame for the fact that it has reached this point. They should have confronted this development of the materialistic worldview at the right time instead of becoming Capitalists themselves.

I can very well understand that an 18-year-old of today inwardly rebels – perhaps without fully knowing why – against this old social order that stands so seriously in contradiction to life. There are for him indeed only two possibilities: Either to become a slave of progress and think in a correspondingly materialistic manner and subject himself to Capitalism for better or for worse. That means in the final analysis: To help to bring about the downfall of mankind and the destruction of Nature on this earth. Or: to raise anti-matter against materialism and return to Nature and its eternally valid values. In this way to give man once again the dignity that gives him primacy above matter so that he may become the master of progress and lead back the latter to the service of mankind.

Only the second way corresponds to the character of the youth. And only the youth can actually follow it. But that should not happen in a vague way but must be well prepared and considered in the best way. For, nothing would be more disastrous for all than to stamp out the last vestiges of a once-good social order before the better new order is visible. One should be very careful to push forward from a void – for that would necessarily lead to a void – namely, anarchy.

Some of the concepts that were always good – because they correspond to Nature – remain acknowledged: Mother, family, one’s people. And these are not to be separated from: Love, loyalty and faith. If these remain unshakably firm as guarantors of a new social order, then duty, truth and justice are produced by themselves.

Then it would be superfluous to praise ‘success’ – instead of performance. And to idolize ‘freedom’ which remains a phantom so long as it is possible only for the benefit of some but for the disadvantage of others.

In this way would I – if I were an 18-year-old – try to develop a Socialism along with like-minded people that would be so modern – so completely different from the Marxist – that nobody could fail to personally participate in it. I am certain that a major part of the German working youth are waiting to overhaul with such Nature-compatible and thus healthy ideas a world that is reactionary to the core. I am certain that the German youth, if they write such ideas on their banner, would elicit the greatest interest among the youth of all cultivated nations and find many comrades. I am certain that our youth has it in them to develop in such an evolutionary world of ideas – to develop it themselves and to disseminate it with an enthusiasm that would do honor to the German name.

That is not a matter or a task of a party – but of a popular movement. Its avant-garde can – and therefore must – be only the youth.

Let this talk be a call to that. Let destiny take its course!

The more you respect the state as such, the more it can and will be you. Do everything out of love for the people, out of loyalty to Germany, and in a belief in the victory of the good!

The situation is serious. Nobody in the world – however powerful he may be – can in the long run act against Nature. Not Capitalism, and its hangers-on. Their opponents indeed proceed not just from their intelligence but from their experience. The day is approaching when the greatest injustice will be discovered and judged. This time the people whom one wished to annihilate in the Second World War will not stand as the accused but count among the prosecutors. This time industrious, decent people will not sit in the dock but exploiters. This time it will not be a matter of business but about justice and honor. This time – and that is the point – one will not proceed from philosophical and religious platitudes but from the facts of natural science. Thus from that which could not be more logical and exact and clean than it is. From the proof of God itself, who stands much higher than all religions. In this way – only in this way – can one say: ‘It is so’ and judge correspondingly.

But the way thereto is not easy for any of us. We must take care not to commit injustice. Especially the older generations are still so rooted in the belief in which they grew up that it is hard for them, in spite of all doubts, to free it from all the ballast of human accretions. To free it to such an extent that in reality only that remains which can stand up by all means even to the scrutiny of the most modern researches. Thus, to leave as remainder only that which, exactly like the natural sciences, is anchored in the eternal laws of Nature.

Thereby there will be no miracle necessary any more as proof of a theology. For Nature is overabundant in the really miraculous! It offers mankind much much more of incomparable beauty, of things ordered in an exemplary way, things that are actually all-powerful, and truly noble. Either the divine apparition to men is everywhere – or nowhere. Everywhere it is present only in Nature. There where man cannot yet disfigure, or corrupt it.

By allowing jazz music to be played in Christian churches one does not lead the youth to the Nature of God – but systematically away from it. By selling the host [11] in automatic machines and defending contraceptive pills one does not come closer to the laws of Nature but in ever greater contradiction to them. One should wish to do service, and not earn money, with the faith of men.


[1]See Martin Conway, Degrelle: Les années de collaboration 1940-1944, Ottignies, 1994, pp.206ff.

[2] Pierre Bérégovoy (1925-1993), whose father was Ukrainian, was Prime Minister of France from April 1992 to March 1993.

[3] André Cools (1927-1991) was a Walloon Parti socialist and Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium from 1969 to 1972. His assassination was probably directed by a rival from his own party.

[4] Paul-Henri Spaak (1899-1972) was a Belgian Socialist politician who served as Foreign Minister under van Zeeland in 1936. He was Prime Minister of Belgium between 1938 and 1939 and, from 1940, served as Foreign Minister in the Belgian government in exile in London. At the outbreak of the war he advocated Belgian neutrality with regard to the developments in Germany and France.

[5] Jacques de Launay, La Grande Débacle, 1944-1945, Paris: Albin Michel, 1985.

[6] Petropoulos, J. (2006). Royals and the Reich: The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 100.

[7] Gossman, L. (2009). Brownshirt Princess: A Study of the Nazi Conscience,” Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers, p. 69.

[8] King Frederick the Great (1712-1786) regularly referred to himself in this manner.

[9] Friedrich Ebert (1871-1925) was a Social Democrat who served as the first president of Germany from 1919 to 1925.

[10] Ernst Thälmann (1886-1944) was leader of the Communist Party of Germany during the Weimar Republic. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1933 and held in solitary confinement until 1944, when he was shot on Hitler’s orders.

[11] The sacramental bread used in the Christian Eucharist.

Destination 1933: The Holodomor and White Sea-Baltic Canal

Context: It’s for The Greater Good

For the essential world history lessons spoon-fed to most Americans, it probably goes something like this: Out of thin air, the Germans began hating the Jews, mistreating them, and then they sparked World War II as a means to conquer the planet. For many sixth-grade students today, this simplified history concept begins by assigning them the dreadful fictional novel Milkweed, by Jerry Spinelli, as an English class assignment that jumps right into the Warsaw ghetto, “jackboots,” and deportation to the concentration camps with a childish second-grade reading level style. No doubt, this one book alone, especially its confusing ending, is probably responsible for dragging down reading and writing skills of our youth while simultaneously deflating any interest they may have developed for the literary arts. From there, the academics typically continues with Elie Wiesel’s Night, a few hours of the History Channel, a Steven Spielberg movie, and possibly a mobile Anne Frank Museum[1] will assemble in their school auditorium, completing the formal education that sticks like glue in the brains of our youth, just as the skeletal body photos of the concentration camp pierce their memory forever. In middle school alone, over two months of study are likely devoted to this curriculum (i.e. narrative/indoctrination).

This snapshot of 1933 is written for those students capable of opening their minds to critical thinking, whose understanding of our past has been shaped by cunning omission and the bias of the unseen victors. This piece also provides some nuggets and details from rare contemporary counter-narratives for the history enthusiasts already possessing the broader picture of context. As long as this lesson is, let the reader consider that it is little more than ten percent of the “Milkweed” word count. Read some of the 500+ one-star reviews and you’ll feel privileged in taking this journey instead![2]

1933 was a profoundly significant and pivotal year, a period that is hardly given the attention it deserves, especially for our young students. Franklin D. Roosevelt took office as president, New Deal policies began taking shape to counter the Great Depression, and American citizens had to forfeit their precious metal to the government as the gold standard was abrogated. Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany and introduced regulations that limited opportunities and restricted the lives of German Jews. Albert Einstein and other influential Jews immigrated to the states in response. And by December the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified repealing the Prohibition of alcohol for Americans. So while there are plenty of historical topics worth exploring for 1933, perhaps the two most damaging to humanity took place under the leadership of Joseph Stalin as the first Five Year Plan was completed in the U.S.S.R.

The Holodomor: Famine in the Ukraine

Taking extreme risks by writing a damning critique about the Soviet Union’s forced collective farming, Gareth Richard Vaughan Jones has been honored as the first journalist to courageously signal to the Western world the details of the devastating man-made famine known today as The Holodomor, genociding between seven to ten million Ukrainians. The article “Famine Grips Russia, Millions Dying, Idle on Rise. Says Briton,” published on March 29, 1933, describes Jones’ effort (as former Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s Foreign Affairs Advisor) to deliver his report of the catastrophe to the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The article quotes him, “I walked along through villages and twelve collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, ‘There is no bread. We are dying.’” There is considerably more worth reading on this young “unsung hero of Ukraine” who would meet an early end to his life, murdered in Mongolia just two years later.

Unlike today’s outpouring for the Ukrainian people and their interests, the American press did their best to suppress the tragedy of the 1932–1933 Holodomor. And just as this author had to resort to Canadian newspapers to help reveal the century-old conflicts of 1922 Palestine, let’s examine an article from the Edmonton Journal:  “Famine in the Ukraine,”[3] by P.J. Lazarowich, October 25, 1933, p.4:

While the press of Europe, and the American continent is, quite properly, devoting much space to Germany’s treatment of the Jews, it is surprising that so very little interest or sympathy is shown in the matter of the terrible famine now raging in the Ukraine, a country which forms a part of the U.S.S.R., and contains over 32,000,000 of Ukrainian population.

Since this journalist immediately implies that the Jewish plight of that time had taken priority over the news from Ukraine, let us take a peek at the 1933 repression against the Jewish population in Germany as listed in the Holocaust Encyclopedia for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. With an introduction describing the “Nazi”[4] party’s 25-point program’s intent was to segregate the Jewish population and abrogate their political, legal, and civil rights, it posts the following for 1933:

  • March 31 – Decree of the Berlin City Commissioner for Health suspends Jewish doctors from the city’s social welfare services.
  • April 7 – The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service removes Jews from government service.
  • April 7 – The Law on the Admission to the Legal Profession forbids the admission of Jews to the bar.
  • April 25 – The Law against Overcrowding in Schools and Universities limits the number of Jewish students in public schools.
  • July 14 – The Denaturalization Law revokes the citizenship of naturalized Jews and “undesirables.”
  • October 4 – The Law on Editors bans Jews from editorial posts.

Now that we have some measure of context for comparing tribulations of the two groups, the Jewish community versus the Ukrainian in 1933, Lazarowich continues as follows:

That a state of famine exists in the Ukraine since the beginning of the year 1932 has now been conclusively established in spite of the official denials of the Russian Soviet government. News of the appalling conditions in the Ukraine has reached the civilized world through foreign press correspondents, refugees, and countless letters written by the Ukrainians and others to their friends and relatives in Canada and other parts of the world.

The London Times of June 24, 1933, published a letter signed by Alexander F. Kerensky, the former prime minister of Russia, in which he endeavors to bring to the attention of the civilized world the fact that a terrible famine is raging in certain parts of Russia, particularly in the Ukraine and the northern Caucasus. In part he says:

The last letter that I received from the Ukraine tells me that the people are now eating carcasses of horses, cats and even human flesh. … In the northern Caucasus the population is reduced to eating the bark of trees. To give some conception of the former wealth of these provinces I will quote from Lenin himself: ‘In the Ukraine they feed pigs on wheat, while in the northern Caucasus the peasants in selling milk wash out their glasses in the milk itself. We have in the Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Siberia amazing wealth.’ (Works of Lenin, Russ. ed. Vol. 25, p. 300).

Mr. Kerensky then concludes:

This amazing wealth after the realization of the five-year-plan with its forced collectivization has become a famine without parallel. Yet up to today, world opinion remains passive in front of a calamity without precedent in the world’s history – Yours, etc.

During the spring and summer of 1933 the famine had reached such enormous proportions involving the fate of millions of people that even the friends of the Soviets like Walter Duranty,[5] correspondent of the New York Times, are no longer able to conceal the terrible conditions prevailing in the Ukraine.

Regarding Duranty,[6] Wikipedia notes that he is criticized by many for having been a Holodomor Denier by misrepresenting the forced and widespread famine. A Ukrainian-American activist today, Oksana Piaseckyj, is quoted in an NPR website article[7] on Duranty: “He is the personification of evil in journalism. … We think he was like the originator of fake news.” NPR emphasizes that, “In the 1930s, as now, an autocrat’s decrees led to mass deaths of Ukrainian civilians and relied on misinformation to try to cover it up. Reporters, including Duranty, were censored and threatened.”

Next, the evidence of agricultural productivity is described by the Canadian journalist cited above:

Nevertheless, and in spite of the conditions the Russian Soviet government relentlessly continued to collect and export wheat and other grains out of Ukraine. According to the report of the W. Sanford Evans statistical service, Winnipeg, of March 29, 1933, during the period between August 4, 1932, and March 23, 1933, the Soviet government shipped 17,320,000 bushels of wheat out of Ukraine.

After consistent famine denials by the Soviet government and their refusal to allow direct investigation from outsiders, the Canadian Red Cross made a request to send material assistance directly to the Ukrainian people. The article shows the Soviets’ response:

“I have just received your letter of September 9, regarding the desire expressed by a group of Ukrainians to send part of their harvest to their compatriots.

“While expressing my most sincere thanks for the interest you have been good enough to take in this matter, I have the honor to inform you that in view of the satisfactory harvest this year, the executive committee of the Alliance of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies of the U.S.S.R. believes that the carrying out of the Canadian citizens’ proposal is not necessary in the absence of real need.”

But in spite of these official denials the facts of the most terrible famine in history can no longer be concealed. The whole world is aware of it. There are a number of people in every civilized country today, journalists, statesmen, tourists, students, peasants, who have returned or fled from the Ukraine recently and who confirm the reports of the famine in all its appalling details. There are several people in this city of Edmonton whose names and addresses are in the possession of the undersigned who have arrived from the Ukraine in the course of the last few months and who may be interviewed and the facts ascertained. There are also many people in this city of Edmonton who are in possession of private letters from parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends which disclose the true conditions in the Ukraine in all their horror.

The rest of the Edmonton Journal article reads like a ghoulish nightmare! So before we explore the details further, let us look at who was overseeing implementation of Ukrainian collective agriculture.

The first clue comes as early as February 19, 1933, where we discover The Pittsburgh Press (in an article by the United Press) gloating: “Collective Drive Seen As Success”:

Collectivization of agriculture, despite its difficulties and the mistakes that have been made, is capable of success, Lazar M. Kagonovich (sic) told a conference of Kolkhoz “shock brigaders” Thursday in a speech made public today.

Kagonovich, one of Stalin’s trusted lieutenants, is head of the special department recently formed by the Communist Party to conduct the struggle on the agrarian front.

Then, from May through July 1933 what appeared prominently in American newspapers across our nation were several short positive-leaning articles on Lazarus Kaganovich, strikingly like today’s political campaign ads, strongly suggesting that he would become Stalin’s successor. These articles show that the Soviet Pravda was alive and well in the U.S. Here is one (and most of them included his photo):  “Jewish Ex-Saddler Rises To Power in Soviet Russia,” in The Buffalo News, May 27. It reads: “Five-Year Planner and Farm Reorganizer, Second to Stalin, Is Regarded as Next Dictator of Nation.” Or how about this take from The Salem News in Ohio – “A New Figure”:

Seldom do politicians emerge as quickly as Lazarus Kaganovich, newly come to power in Russia, has appeared to Americans. Their introduction leaves them groping [for] his name. … Comrade Kaganovich is that rare creation — the probable successor to a dictator. He is Stalin’s right hand, placed there by Stalin himself. Success in his various duties has caused the people to welcome his presence there. In all probability, his name, now that it has been made known in the United States, will be one of the recurring ones in news from Russia. … Men of steel and iron are not common; they do not thrive in each other’s company. In Russia, apparently, two strong men are working hand in hand. Stalin, old in service, has found a capable understudy in Kaganovich, who is not yet 40 years old. Conjecture or fact, it interests the world to hear of Lazarus Kaganovich and his power.

Although it’s a rare American today who can recognize the name or the facts about his career, Kaganovich was clearly the Soviet leader accountable for the methods and evil behind the Ukrainian Holodomor, and this aspect of his biography was later amplified in 1991 after his death at the ripe age of 97 years:

“[A]fter Stalin himself, Kaganovich was the man most responsible for the forced collectivization of the countryside in the late 1920s and early 1930s, a devastating campaign that moved peasants to state-run farms and claimed millions of lives.”[8] “Kaganovich was born into a Jewish peasant family in the Ukraine. A confirmed atheist who seemed to avoid any contact with Jews throughout his life, he changed his name from Kogan to the more Russian Kaganovich. … [He] was Ukrainian party boss until 1927, when Stalin brought him to Moscow.”[9]

In 1933, the death count attributable to Kaganovich should have been noticed, but the Godless psychopath had considerable American journalistic support. And few Americans know his name today.

Daily Worker — Predecessor to People’s World (online today)

In researching American newspapers on the Ukrainian famine, an interesting discovery is the politically left-leaning/socialist/communist paper “Daily Worker[10] and its Moscow correspondent Nathaniel Buchwald, published both from Chicago and New York City. On April 13, just two weeks after Gareth Jones made his startling report to arouse the world, we find a full-page article praising the “[Soviet] achievements … that have already created the basis for a great increase of the agricultural output with a consequent further improvement of the material level of the population.” The article is titled, “From the Successful First Five-Year Plan, Soviet Workers Pass to the Second,” and while admitting difficulties where “basic foodstuffs are still rationed out” and “obtaining food is sometimes irksome, and takes up much of the leisure of the workers,” Buchwald gives center of attention to blaming the Kulaks for most of the problems through their exploitation of the situation and sabotage.  The CPUSA-approved article attributes rapid development of “agriculture on a socialist basis” to the “elimination of the exploiting kulak-class.”[11] And “elimination” was no accidental choice of words for the Soviet propagandist, as those Kulaks who weren’t outright murdered or forced into collectivized Kolhozes[12] were certainly sent to the Gulag for deadly slave labor.

Buchwald’s kulak blame continues: “A good many of the former kulaks succeeded in penetrating the administrative apparatus of the collective and state farms and even the Party ranks in order to carry on this counter-revolutionary disruptive work within the kolhozes” (emphasis in original). “The wholesale slaughter of cattle carried out by the kulaks in their fight against collectivization resulted in a shortage of meat and dairy products, which is still serious.”

Three months later on July 5, 1933, the same far-left newspaper continued providing a cover-up for the ongoing genocide atrocities to its 35,000 subscribers while glorifying farm collectivization.[13] “The Spring Sowing Campaign in the Soviet Union” by Buchwald gives a full page of details in the history of the “Griadushchy Mir” Crimean commune. Here we read the final utopian-leaning words of the article:

Here you could see before your very eyes the new type of men and women brought into being by the new order. The individualistic proprietary cravings, the sense of personal greed are disappearing. A new spiritual force, a sense of collectivism has come to animate and illumine the lives of these people on their way to “the world to come,” as the name of their commune, Griadushchy Mir, implies.

And on November 4, 1933, Vern Smith is published in the same Daily Worker praising Soviet success, highlighting a Kaganovich speech made at the opening of a new industrial plant, The Kaganovich ball bearing plant.[14] The communist leader is quoted: “In a few days we celebrate the sixteenth anniversary of the October Revolution. These sixteen years are a whole epoch of a new society, reared by a new kind of man.” The visionary, drunk on death, continues…

We declare to the whole world that we are peacefully working. We give the peasant tractors instead of his wooden plow. But, gentlemen of the Far East or West, don’t interfere with our peaceful labor, or you will find the whole millions of our people rally as one man, every worker to defend his factory, every collective farmer to defend his collective.

When the cruel forced slave labor of political opponents is deemed “peaceful labor,” is this not the ultimate example of Orwellian “newspeak” or inversion of fact? In as far as today’s mainstream media and academia pile on the guilt of White Americans of European ancestry with ever-increasing accusations, one must wonder if today’s leftists can feel any guilt for the blatant 1933 cover-up propaganda presented in The Daily Worker or the Walter Duranty articles in the The New York Times? Keep in mind, this occurred long after the American Civil War ostensibly ended the slavery of Blacks. So before moving on to other 1933 contexts, let us give respect to P.J. Lazarowich and delve into the remainder of his October 25 humanitarian plea:

Among the facts disclosed the following are the most striking:

  1. Livestock and poultry have practically disappeared from the Ukraine, having either died from lack of feed or was slaughtered by the starving population.
  2. Dogs and cats have also disappeared. Most of them were killed and eaten by the population. Even rats and mise (sic) are eagerly sought for as food.
  3. The people eat grass, weeds, bark of certain kinds of trees and insects.
  4. Recently cannibalism has become rampant. Even dead bodies are exhumed and devoured. The old, the infirm and the defenceless are secretly murdered and devoured. Mothers are afraid to send their children any distance away from home for fear that they may be murdered and devoured by the famished hordes which roam the country.
  5. The death rate has assumed hitherto unknown proportions. In many villages 20 to 30 persons die every day. Many of the villages have lost two-thirds of the population. The dead are often left un-buried until the bodies decompose. When the burials take place it is in large, common graves generally 20 to 30 bodies in each grave.

It is difficult to estimate the loss of human life, but the consensus of opinion is that it will exceed the figures reached during the famine in 1921–22, which was officially placed at about 5,000,000 people [In the aftermath of the Russian Civil War].

In spite of these facts the Russian Soviet government has not ceased from the forcible requisition of grain in the Ukraine. On the contrary, according to press reports (“Pravda” (Leningrad) No. 181) a large army of red officials has invaded the country under the personal direction of Postyshev and is draining the last drop of blood from the dying population of Ukraine.

In view of all the above facts it appears that the Russian Soviet government is deliberately determined to starve most of the population of Ukraine in order to beat it into complete submission to the principles of Communism which the Ukrainian peasant masses have hitherto vigorously resisted and repudiated.

According to recent reports from the Ukrainian bureau in London, England, all the Ukrainian organizations in western Europe have initiated a movement for the establishment of an international relief committee for Ukraine for the purpose of devising ways and means of and sending immediate relief to the famine stricken areas of Ukraine. Ukrainian representatives from Bukowina (Rumania) and eastern Galicia (Poland) have recently met representatives of the leading humanitarian institutions in London, England, and steps have been taken towards the establishment of a relief committee in London composed of both English and Ukrainian representatives. Similar efforts are being made at Geneva in co-operation with the appropriate organs of the League of Nations.

Canadians of Ukrainian descent have also formed such relief committees. Furthermore they are conducting a Canada-wide action of vigorous protest against the present inhuman policy of the Russian Soviet government in the Ukraine. They earnestly hope to arouse the civilized world from its apathy towards the impending disaster of the Ukrainian nation and to enlist its co-operation in the effort to send relief to the famished area. (my emphasis)

With the Germans being geographically closer to the Red Terror of the Soviet Union and sensing the existential threats to their homeland, on top of that which they already experienced recently in 1919 with the Bolshevik revolutionary takeovers in Bavaria[15] by the Jews Ernst Toller, then Eugen Levine, and finally Kurt Eisner — should they not have been careful regarding the ethnic/racial nature of the “atheist” leaders of this Soviet terror?

The White Sea – Baltic Canal

On November 29, 1933, the Salt Lake Telegram, page 4, reads: “Convict Labor Finishes Great Irrigation Job.” In The Cincinnati Post a week later, the same article appears as “Stalin Builds Great Russian Canal System.” The bulk of this article describes a

gigantic construction, carried out in large part by convict labor, completed after three years’ intensive work in far-off Tadjikistan. … Hundreds of thousands of men and women labored on this undertaking … under arduous physical conditions which took a cruel toll in lives … A huge irrigation system was finished in the valleys of the Vakhsh and Piandj rivers [with a] capacious canal 55 miles long. … A large proportion [of the labor] were exiled ‘kulaks,’ drawn from villages all over the Soviet Union. The tragedy of this labor never will be told – only the grandiose results are on view.” (this author’s emphasis)

Press Silent on Work

While the work was under way scarcely a word about it appeared in the press. It was only after its completion that the nation was told the facts. The region opened to intensive irrigation farming was named Kaganovich Land in honor of Stalin’s right-hand man…” (my emphasis)

The opening of [this] irrigation system came soon after the official opening of a convict-built canal at the other extreme of the vast Soviet land, namely the one connecting the White Sea and the Baltic Sea by way of Lake Oneiga. (my emphasis)

With these few American newspaper clippings giving a taste of the Soviet’s hand-dug canals, it’s time to turn to Volume Two of The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s (hence forward “A.S.”) chapter titled The Archipelago Metastasizes, where we find contemporary sources from 1933 and a large dose of A.S.’s biting criticism to poke at the inhumane communist leadership.[16]

A.S. estimates a quarter million laborers met their demise during a rushed twenty-month mega-project to highlight the end of the first Soviet Five Year Plan.[17] He brings out details from an official book penned by the successful Russian and Soviet writer Maxim Gorky commemorating the completion of the White Sea–Baltic canal (also called the Belomar Canal), including photos of excruciating labor done through two bitter cold winters around the icy grounds near the Arctic Circle using shovels, wheel barrows, antiquated wooden cranes and wooden machinery. With 100,000 prisoner labor force at any given time, A.S. states that 100,000 died in the first winter alone (just think of the labor replacement rate!), one contributing factor being that before enough barracks were built to house the workers, men and even women were forced to sleep in tents or out in the open on the snow! Today a quick internet search finds that the February high temperature in Belomorsk is 16 degrees Fahrenheit and the low just 6! As for a connection to the Ukrainian famine and The Gulag Archipelago, A.S. footnotes that an Anna Skripnikova reported “that refugees from the Ukraine came … to get work near [the canal project camp] and by this means to save themselves from starvation,” even though the cold gruel served to the “free voluntary employee” only consisted of “murky dishwater with fish heads and individual millet grains.”[18]

The Footage Farm has excellent video available online showing the Soviet movies documenting the brutal construction of this canal and its celebration at completion. A.S. finds a picture of this in the commemorative book: “There is a photograph that shows [Stalin, Voroshilov, and Kirov] sitting on the deck in wicker armchairs, ‘joking, laughing, smoking.’” Early in the film, engineers are shown at the drawing board. A.S. describes the tension in his book:

The engineers say: “We will make the structure of concrete.” The Chekists reply: “There is not enough time.” The engineers say: “We need large quantities of iron.” The Chekists reply: “Replace it with wood!” The engineers say: “We need tractors, cranes, construction machinery!” The Chekists: There will be none of that, not one kopeck of foreign exchange: do it all by hand.” (my emphasis)

And to get to this arduous hand work, the reader might wish to skip to time 3:56 of this Footage Farm video. A.S. quips in this chapter how at least the Egyptians, building the pyramids, were given the contemporary equipment of their time period. The shock brigades (as they called Soviet groups of workers), to their distress, “used the technology of forty centuries earlier!”

At the end of the workday there were corpses left on the work site. The snow powdered their faces. One of them was hunched over beneath an overturned wheelbarrow, he had hidden his hands in his sleeves and frozen to death in that position. Someone had frozen with his head bent down between his knees. Two were frozen back-to-back leaning against each other. They were peasant lads and the best workers one could possibly imagine.

And right off [the overseers] gave them norms of shingle and boulders that you’d be unable to fulfill even in summer. … They [the peasants] gave all their work and weakened very swiftly and then froze to death. … At night the sledges went out and collected them. The drivers threw the corpses onto the sledges with a dull clonk.

And in the summer bones remained from corpses which had not been removed in time, and together with the shingle they got into the concrete mixer. And in this way they got into the concrete of the last lock at the city of Belomorsk and will be preserved there forever.[19]

So it appears that the engineers got some concrete after all. Flush with details, further reading reveals work details extending to 62 hours straight, sometimes hacking “at the frozen earth,” and other times “up to their waists in water.” Even the horses used in construction received the torture treatment, “because horses were a kulak animal and also destined to die.”

A.S. makes sure to give credit to “the six principal lieutenants of Stalin and Yagoda, the chief overseers of Belomor, six hired murderers each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives: Firin – Berman – Frenkel –  Kogan –  Rappoport – Zhuk.”[20] While Sergie Zhuk, the hydraulic engineer who supervised the canal projects, does not have his photo presented in this chapter of The Gulag Archipelago, all the others mentioned here save “The man of steel” himself have their portraits shown on one page, with an additional picture of Aron Solts, a judicial and prosecuting official of the Soviet Party’s Central Control Commission. A.S. avoids attributing this entire group’s ethnicity to Jews, including the People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs Genrikh Yagoda, but then devotes five pages to the biography of Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel, whom he describes as “a Turkish Jew” born in Constantinople: “A stubborn legend persists in the Archipelago [of Soviet slave camps] to the effect that ‘The camps were thought up by Frenkel.’” Readers are given details of how Frenkel was the brain behind the Gulag camp classifications, the food rationing system and more. He was, indeed, the “’works chief’ — the chief overseer of the labor battle” at the White Sea-Baltic Canal Construction Project.

One of the listed henchmen, Matvei Berman, would receive the “Order of Lenin” award for successful completion of the canal, and proceed to head the entire Gulag slave labor system (formerly led by Kogan). Others, like Firin, continued working as leaders in the NKVD, the secret police, where political repression and extrajudicial executions reigned.  A.S. describes the vile hatred for humanity by “camp chiefs” like Firin: “[He] was upset that there were too many frail workers who were not meeting production goals. He ordered the camp leaders to cut their food rations as a punishment.”[21] Does this hateful cruelty bare any resemblance to today’s intentional starvation of Gazan civilians by “the Jewish State”?

The Nobel Laureate Soltzhenitsyn refrained from calling out the Bolshevik Revolution as a Jewish Revolution or the Gulag system as Jewish Tyranny, but he still got his point across for readers who like to research names and biographies.[22] And today, 51 years after its original publishing, The Gulag Archipelago will come with a carefully framed Foreword by historian Anne Applebaum (probably no close relationship to the Hirsh Apfelbaum of the Bolshevik years, Grigor Zinoviev’s alias). But alas, in 1933 one American paper on August 20 specifically tagged the racial identities of the Bolsheviks in the press. The Kansas City Star printed a piece titled, “Stalin, Soviet Leader, Is Merely Party Boss, In No Sense A Dictator.” It states “The supreme power in Russia is the Politburo of the Communist party. Its original membership consisted, in the revolutionary days, of Lenin…Sverdlov, Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev. The last three mentioned were Jewish intellectuals of the first water, although today they are in the bad graces of the Stalin regime.”[23] What the article fails to mention is that Yakov Sverdlov was also born to Jewish parents, his father Mikhail, a document forger who “stored arms for the revolutionary underground…[and] was sympathetic to his children’s socialist tendencies [as indicated by] 5 out of his 6 children [becoming] involved in revolutionary politics at some point.”[24]

The Ukraine Connection

Indeed, both the Ukrainian Famine known as The Holodomor and the mass-murdering slave camps described in The Gulag Archipelago are hardly known or understood by mainstream Americans. It’s no surprise that there have been no blockbuster Hollywood films produced to enlighten our public on this pre-World War II history, but be certain that if there ever is, historians like Anne Applebaum will oversee how the facts are presented. And someone accidentally learning this history today might question why there is overwhelming support now for Ukrainians and their war against the Russians compared to 1933, when a code of silence shrouded the news? Well, it’s certainly complicated. But perhaps it all comes down to racial/ethnic/religious vengeance and family retributions by our ruling elites and the people appointed to serve our government? If our government was flush with Soviet spies already back in the 1930s — and it was, what sort of vetting system today is keeping our nation secure when leading presidential campaign financiers are flying convicts convicted of espionage on their private jets to Israel?[25] It’s dumbfounding, for sure, and it probably involves some inbred paranoia that deserves no place in American leadership. Just look at former Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland of the Nudelman family, immigrants from Bessarabia, a Ukrainian region. This one American has been a key figure in initiating and overseeing the conflict between the Ukrainians and Russians, and we can never know what personal grievances fueled her rage! (see here).

But we do know that of the seven original Bolshevik Politburo members of the USSR, three were Ukrainian Jews: Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), Grigory Zinoviev and Grigori Sokolnikov [born Girsh Yankelevich]. Lazar Kaganovich, described as the most “vicious” Bolshevik, was also born in the Ukraine, as were the famous assassins of Odesa Samuel “Sholem” Schwartzbard and Yakov Blumkin. In fact, Blumkin helped reestablish the Soviet regime in Ukraine only after assassinating the German Ambassador to Russia in 1918, Wilhelm von Mirbach. There must be over a thousand years of Jewish history in the Ukraine, but Ukraine was the mother lode of Bolshevik revolutionaries involved in murdering millions of Ukrainians! Furthermore, several Russian Czars had been assassinated by Jews, as well as Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, a much-admired statesman who accomplished great reforms for his homeland – murdered in Kiev by a Jewish lawyer from Kiev. So with so much warmongering between Ukraine and Russia today, one must wonder if this conflict is truly supported by American interests or by Americans promoting Jewish interests and acting out their historical hatred?

While countless more Ukrainians and Russians lose their lives to this needless war “for democracy,” should the details presented here make Americans question if this costly conflict (for our taxpayers) stems from one enormous feud, much like between the Hatfields and McCoys carried out over centuries? Add the current Gaza genocide with the Ukraine War, another Jewish affair, and one should now wonder if we Americans are getting taken for yet another ride! In fact, The Guardian recently exposed a disturbing hypocrisy in Gulag historian Anne Applebaum that perhaps sheds light on a deep moral disconnect between us regular folk and prominent media figures. Why do America’s liberal hawks attack Russia while giving Israel a free pass? The article accuses Michael McFaul, Max Boot and Anne Applebaum, huge defenders of democracy, as being quick to denounce Russian aggression while ignoring Israeli crimes. “Liberal hawks often profess their commitment to human rights. Yet they haven’t called for ending a war that is killing more people per day than any conflict this century.”

The Conflict Metastasizing Into Our Democracy

However you  want to describe our growing pestilence, whether we think religiously of “Evil” from the Abrahamic religions (“Satan,” “the Devil,” “Belial” or “Shaitan”), whether we think scientifically as in the group evolutionary strategy theory of Dr. Kevin MacDonald regarding an alien out-group described in his trilogy on Judaism and subsequent writing, [26] or Dr. Andrew Fraser’s radical but scholarly critique of our very own in-group, the Anglo-Saxons, in The WASP Question, whether we blame it on ignoring the warnings of our founding President George Washington in his Farewell Address,[27] or attribute our woes to philosophical/spiritual terms like cultural pathology, cultural parasitism, cultural distortion and retardation as defined in Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium,[28] one can no longer deny the simple wisdom professed by former political scientist professor Dr. Patrick Slattery of Republic Broadcasting Network’s National Bugle Radio podcast: “Studying politics without considering Jewish influence or power is like studying physics while ignoring gravity.” If our struggle to save ourselves is to have any chance as Slattery says, it will only occur when the ultimate taboo which has turned freedom of speech and truth about Jews and Judaism into hate crimes is finally obliterated, transforming our conversations into a truer open dialogue, which will melt the evils away like water melted away the Wicked Witch of the West in L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz.

Conclusion

While this short clipping from The American Israelite predates our year-of-concentration, the December 10, 1931 reporting of Dr. Wise’s sermon at the Free Synagogue at Carnegie Hall sets the stage for our conclusion and its historical context. Furthermore, this clipping is no longer easily available online. Was it memory-holed à la George Orwell’s 1984 to shelter any critique? Nevertheless, in our very own recent times we run across countless Jewish advocates from any of the over 10,000 Jewish NGOs and synagogues moralizing to their audiences how it’s their duty to perform “tikkun olam,” to “repair the world.” There’s a good chance you’ve come across this self-declared goodwill based on their Jewish identity. But only months before the tragic Holodomor was killing Ukrainians, this is what Americans might have read if it leaked out of the Jewish newspaper…

Is Western civilization, with its grimmest, grimiest social injustice and wrong worth saving?” Dr. Wise asked. “Or is it not the function of the Jew to bring about the supercession of that decrepit, degenerate, and inevitably perishing civilization, so-called.?”

The two aims set for Judaism by Professor Orion were not much to be regarded as distinct or antithetical, Dr. Wise pointed out. “The object of Zion is to salvage civilization,” he declared, “to reconcile the civilizations of West and East alike, to fuse each to save each. Our ambition is to build a weaponless world, to build for truth and justice and freedom and brotherliness without force of arms.

There are probably few Americans today who realize such sentiment exists from such a prominent person in the minority group in our midst. Fuse us with other civilizations? No thank you! Leave our West alone! This sermon written for Jews could easily have been inspired from award-winning Jewish author Maurice Samuel who in 1924 published the book You Gentiles, where he confidently writes:

A century of partial tolerance gave us Jews access to your world. In that period the great attempt was made, by advance guards of reconciliation, to bring our two worlds together. It was a century of failure. Our Jewish radicals are beginning to understand it dimly.

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs or demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the enmity between the Game and God. But those of us who fail to understand that truth will always be found in alliance with your rebellious factions, until disillusionment comes. The wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust this unwelcome role upon us.[29]

Such shocking and disturbing insight, written with such candid honesty following the 1924 National Origins Act on Immigration, may help explain the early warmongering tone of “F.D. Roosevelt’s friend” on May 18, 1933, where the Buffalo News posted on page 3 this headline:

“DR. WISE SAYS HITLER WILL WAR ON JEWS.”

Dr. Stephen S. Wise, honorary president of the American Jewish congress, said in a speech Wednesday night that Chancellor Adolf Hitler “talks with peace on his lips and war on his hands and in his black soul — war on the Jews.” … Continuing, Dr. Wise said: “President Roosevelt may be for peace. I am for war. (my emphasishis author’s emphasis)

With the honorary religious leader for American Judaism hell bent towards war so early in this game, reinforced in March with the Daily Express bold headline “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY,”[30] let us recall that this strong and visceral hatred in 1933 was not a reaction to violence, but rather to the legislative changes from the new German government. Compared with today, could a member of the founding American majority prove that today’s system of civil rights is ten times more devious and deceptive than what the Germans explicitly enacted in full plain view? It’s almost straight out of Machiavelli’s Chapter V of The Prince, regarding how cities should be administered after conquering them: “first, by devastating them; next, by going and living there in person; thirdly, by letting them keep their own laws, exacting tribute, and setting up an oligarchy which will keep the state friendly to you.”

Our White population is implicitly and underhandedly being transformed into a despised minority, massively discriminated against in nearly all competitive college admissions where a tiny Jewish-American demographic receives about 25% of Ivy League admissions—the ticket to power. Just compare the arrogant tone of senior New York Times columnist David Brooks[31] in The Chosen’: Getting In  against the scholarly scrutiny of Ron Unz’s “The Myth of American Meritocracy” where reasonable strategies estimate Jewish over-representation in the elite schools by as much as 500% with respect to ability or up to 1400% by population group. The discrimination may not be written in law as in 1933 Germany, but the results are an inversion of the past, Jewish students displacing qualified or better-qualified non-Jewish (straight) Whites.

When looking at media and the press in America, a careful examination might suggest that there is indeed a Law on Editors banning a certain demographic, but it doesn’t appear like the Jewish community is the group suffering. The Ochs-Sulzberger family are, in fact, long-time owners of The New York Times the most powerful newspaper in the world! Just check out their managing editors. Whites, and especially White males, are also discriminated against in the best job markets and professions under the pretext of DEI. And where the Jews complained about the German Denaturalization Law, today’s majority sees their democratic representation mortally diluted as their nation has its borders overrun under Jewish Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, after the decades-long activism that resulted in Emanuel Celler’s 1965 Immigration Act. In 1933 Germany, Jews were barred from government service. In Biden’s administration today, the most important cabinet seats are held by Jews, including Chief of Staff, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Homeland Security, and Treasury. If there ever was a systemic bias in the United States, one only needs to look at the top positions where straight males of European heritage have been severely thinned out. But today is not 1933, and no religious or political leader dare use words as strong as Dr. Wise was permitted, because there is no impunity against simply feeling, let alone saying “It’s okay to be White!” That’s because the Jewish community leadership insists that this is Hate On Display.[32]

If only the American majority could have the transparency of the 1933 German laws, they wouldn’t be stuck in Plato’s cave deciphering flickering shadows on the walls![33] And so with our current world in turmoil, many “experts” forecasting World War III or simply “chaos,” isn’t it befitting to end our 1933 review with words from a historian and philosopher of that period, Oswald Spengler. (Feel free to meditate on this.): “[W]e see life as the form in which the actualizing of the possible is accomplished. With respect to the property of Direction, the possible is called the Future and the actualized the Past.”[34]

With 1933 now in our past, the direction of Western Man must come from his soul and a new “Spirit of the Age!” America turned a blind eye to the horrifying mass murder by the Bolshevik/Communist political tyranny and oppression that would kill tens of millions of innocents. If ever there was genocidal madness worthy of the charge “Crimes Against Humanity,” à la the Nuremburg Trials, this was it. And how did FDR’s government treat it? The United States formerly recognized the Soviet Union on November 16, 1933 and began normal diplomatic relations, a few months after the White Sea-Baltic Canal completion. According to historian Sean McMeekin of the book Stalin’s War, A New History of World War II, America continued to pour its wealth, its intellectual property, its manufacturing secrets, its industrial material, and its armaments into Stalin’s hands — to make the world safe for communism!

Yes, this was the epic story hidden from ears and eyes of the American public at a harrowing period of the Great Depression, in favor of reporting the repression of Jewish-German civil rights.

The Hour of Decision. Listening to a popular left-leaning news network to hear their narrative, the host finished his interview, “Next year in Jerusalem,” a spiritual saying that confirmed for this author that we secretly live in a Judeo-centric culture that few Americans realize. Was it slowly crafted with the help of Hollywood, as author Neal Gabler asserts in his book An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. The smoke and mirrors are everywhere and getting increasingly more complex with the rise of AI. And with this ending, we return to the premise enunciated at the beginning, a quote from the final paragraphs of Elie Wiesel’s Night: “OUR FIRST ACT AS FREE MEN was to throw ourselves onto the provisions…The next day, a few of the young men ran into Weimar to bring back some potatoes and clothes — and to sleep with girls. But still no trace of revenge.”

One must wonder if our eighth graders get to debate in class how, with so much suffering on account of the Germans, these emaciated prisoners could even think of heading into town seeking out sex before even the third day of liberation? Perhaps this seems unfathomable because it is not our lived experience! One thing for sure, today’s escalating state of hostilities suggest that “the revenge” has resurfaced!

Oswald Spengler writes in July, 1933 from Munich, in the beginning of The Hour of Decision[35]:

Is there today a man among the White races who has eyes to see what is going on around him on the face of the globe? To see the immensity of the danger which looms over this mass of peoples? I do not speak of the educated or uneducated city crowds, the newspaper-readers, the herds who vote at elections — and, for that matter, there is no longer any quality-difference between voters and those for whom they vote — but of the ruling classes of the White nations, in so far as they have not been destroyed, of the statesman in so far as there are any left; of the true leaders of policy, of economic life, of armies, and of thought. Does anyone, I ask, see over and beyond his time, his own continent, his county, or even the narrow circle of his own activities?

We live in momentous times. … At this point advancing history towers high over economic distress and internal political ideals. The elemental forces of life are themselves entering the fight, which is for all or nothing. … The dice are there ready for this stupendous game. Who dares to throw them?

Let us hope that these lessons of 1933 reach many who are unaware of the historical facts that make up context — but more importantly let them reach the eyes and mind of our future young Hero, for the sake of humanity.  Thence, we might even have our own short saying, our new American dream for a Homeland returned!

Honoring catchwords no more, we showed them the door,
Our Hero will arrive, our people will thrive,
With deception, usury and Big Lies long afar,
Never doubt We Will Become Who We Are! — Sigurd Kristensen


[1] While this author has personally witnessed a mobile Anne Frank Museum on the marquee of a local school within the last decade, it is no longer discoverable online. One can assume that it may have been incorporated into the new Mobile Museum of Tolerance. See https://mmot.com/about-us/mmot-reservation-request-form/ for an image of their bus. Will any patriotic NGO dare create the Mobile USS Liberty Museum with holograms of current survivors teaching students how they were ordered into silence? There could be a mockup of a Navy Commander receiving his Medal of Honor in an old Navy hangar instead of the White House! It might be called “Erasing the Liberty”:  https://www.erasingtheliberty.com/

[2] For example, “I didn’t like it at all. Nothing made sense and the plot was confusing … this book does not deserve a long review.” Or how about this one, mimicking Milkweed’s style: “Ok. This book. Is BAD. Like, I can’t even! OK so basically first off this is Jewish propaganda!” – https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/69392.Milkweed#CommunityReviews

This author wholeheartedly agrees!

[3] This, and all successive newspaper articles referred to herein can be found at newspapers.com except for the Stephen Wise sermon “Should it Be Saved?” (probably memory-holed)

[4] The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, its website quoted here, and most current mainstream media and academia use the disparaging slur term “Nazi” in favor of the party they are describing, the National Socialists. In this author’s cursory research, the earliest use of this slang in America (from available sources, New York Times excluded) is from the article “Germany Put Under Money Dictatorship,” page 1, The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY, July 19, 1930. In the fourth to last paragraph, it puts this term in quotes: “This party, popularly called the ‘Nazis,’ now ranks ninth in the Reichstag.” As American history progresses in the twentieth century, we find more and more conflation of this smear term from its initial labeling of ‘National Socialists’ to: (1) any Germans from the World War II period, (2) any politically incorrect ideas, (3) all right-of-center political activists who touch taboo subjects, and (4) even President Donald Trump or Arabs from Gaza are labeled as “Nazis.” If this pace of liberal wordsmithery continues, surely the American descendants of the men who stormed the beaches of Normandy, saving the Jews from further demise, will also be labeled “Nazis” soon enough (if they haven’t already) when they dare to profess self-respect for their own White race, since that is the only race not given a celebrated “History Month” or dignity, or respect. Also related, following World War II, tens of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives fighting communists, but no historian, academic or mainstream media  spokesperson dares to use the derogatory slur “Commie.” Lastly, although American territory was attacked by the Japanese, when was the last time you heard the ethnic slur “Nips” or “Japs” in the mainstream? Surely there’s an answer to the focus on “Nazis”!

[5] From Kevin MacDonald reviewing Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s chapter on the 1930 in 200 Years Together: For Jewish apologists, the victimization of a few thousand Jews (not even targeted because they were Jews) merits deep concern while millions of non-Jews were being murdered. Jewish involvement with Bolshevism is perhaps the most egregious example of Jewish moral particularism in history. The horrific consequences of Bolshevism for millions of non-Jewish Soviet citizens were not an issue for Jewish leftists not only in the USSR but also in the US. In America during the 1930s, the CPUSA was promoting specific Jewish interests including opposing anti-Semitism, supporting Zionism, and advocating the importance of maintaining Jewish cultural traditions (see here, p. 36 ff). American radicals glorified the development of Jewish life in the Soviet Union as “good for Jews.” American radical Jews —a substantial percentage of the entire Jewish community at that time — saw the world through Jewish lenses.

An important aspect of the suppression of this information in the West was the “utter silence” of the media. As discussed here (p. 38), the New York Times was owned by a Jewish family and was much on the mind of American patriots like Charles Lindbergh concerned about Jewish media influence. During the 1930s, while it was highlighting German persecution of Jews and pushing for intervention into World War II against Germany, the Times whitewashed the horrors of Soviet rule, including the Ukrainian famine, even though the story was covered extensively by the Hearst newspapers and even though the leadership of the Times had been informed on numerous occasions that its correspondent was painting a false picture of Stalin’s actions. The Times has never renounced the Pulitzer Prize given to it reporter, Walter Duranty, for his coverage of Stalin’s Five-Year Plan.

 

[6] According to NPR’s article, Duranty was the NYT’s “charismatic chief correspondent in the Soviet Union” who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his “dispassionate interpretive reporting.” Duranty supposedly made “glowing reports of [Stalin’s] harsh plans for Ukraine. The award-winning journalism begins, “Russia today cannot be judged by Western standards or interpreted in Western terms.”

[7] “The New York Times can’t shake the cloud over a 90-Year-Old Pulitzer Prize,’ May 8, 2022

[8] “Lazar Kaganovich, No. 2 man to Stalin,” by David Remnick, The Sacramento Bee, July 27, 1991, p.35

[9] Ibid.

[10] From The Culture of Critique, Ch. 2: “Gene Weltfish, another student of Boas, epitomized this sense of alienation when she said she felt that her generation had only three choices—go live in Paris, sell The Daily Worker (the U.S. Communist Party newspaper—[an indication that communist affiliation was a mainstream view in the Jewish community of the period]) on street corners, or study anthropology at Columbia” ((Sarich & Miele, The Reality of Race Differences (Routledge, 2004),90–91.

[11] Kulak: “a prosperous or wealthy peasant farmer in 19th century Russia” or “a farmer characterized by Communists as having excessive wealth.” (Merriam-Webster definition); Are they simply the best successful professional farmers of their time?

[12] For the spelling found in current dictionaries, see “kolkhoz”: “a collective farm of the former Soviet Union.” (Merriam-Webster). Nathaniel Buchwald also spells the same word “colhoz” in a later article. For a detailed auto-biography written in English on the life of a mother separated from her husband and children and exiled to a kolkhoz in Siberia as a political prisoner, please read “Sentence: Siberia, A Story of Survival” by Ann Lehtmets (of the Baltics) and Douglas Hoile. On the back cover: “Ann Lehtmets was one of the few women to have lived through Stalin’s Holocaust and reached the Western World…[She] owed her life to spirit, intelligence, guile and humour. These qualities shine through on every page of her extraordinary recollections.”

[13] This circulation number of 35,000 subscribers “at its peak” is found on the Wikipedia article for The Daily Worker newspaper. If it can be assumed that its peak circulation was in the early 1930s when socialism and labor movements were in vogue, then this number is a tiny percentage of the American population at the time of about 125,000,000.  Compare that with an estimated circulation of the American Free Press (“described as populist and nationalist, FOR Life and Liberty and AGAINST the New World Order,” see AmericanFreePress.net) that has an approximate circulation peaking at 15,000 today in a population of 342,000,000, quite likely making the left-wing-communist cause more than six times more influential than its political opposite (even considering that there is less readership of newspapers in 2024!)

[14] “USSR Independent but Not Isolated Says Kaganovich,” Daily Worker (November 4, 1933). 8.

[15] See the Bavarian Soviet Republic in Wikipedia for details

[16] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics,  2007)

[17] The Soviet policy that included rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture resulting in mass murder of millions of political prisoners through slave labor. These prisoners were eventually nicknamed Zeks, but their official term was “Lishonnye Svobody” meaning “Deprived of Freedom.”

[18] Footnote no. 27, p. 98, The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[19] A.S. quoting D.P. Vitkovsky (a Solovetsky Islands veteran who worked on the White Sea Canal) from his book Plzhizni (half a Lifetime)

[20] Semyon Firin (born Seymon Pupko), Matvei Berman, Naftaly Frenkel, Lazar Kogan, Yakov Rappoport, Sergie Yakovlevich Zhuk

[21] Golfo Alexopoulos, Illness and Inhumanity in Stalin’s Gulag (Yale University Press. 2018), 76–78. ISBN 9781786733566.; Also, Firin’s original surname was Pupko according to  Stephen Kotkin, Stalin, vol.2: Waiting for Hitler, 1929–1941 (Penguin, 2017). 413. ISBN 9780735224483.

[22] And Soltzhenitsyn would revisit The Jewish Question with his book, Two Hundred Years Together, only available in English with bootleg translations online.

[23] Full names of the revolutionaries listed in this article: Yakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein), Lev Kamenev ( born Lev Rozenfeld, and Grigory Zinoviev (born Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky, aka Hirsh Apfelbaum); “…of the first water” meaning “of the highest grade or quality,” a term taken from the diamond-grading business relating to luster.

[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Sverdlov

[25] For example, just take a look at the fast-tracking of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith after leaving Harvard, as interviewed in Jeffrey Goldberg’s article, “A Little Learning,” in a 2005 issue of The New Yorker: He received an internship with a Senator and was top aide for neocon Richard Perle: “…my family got wiped out by Hitler”, “A black-and-white portrait of Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, hangs over a green leather couch [in his private library].”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/05/09/a-little-learning-2

[26] Dr. Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Praeger Pulblishers, Westport, CT 1994, Separation and Its Discontent, Praeger Publishers 1998, The Culture of Critique, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 1998

[27] “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.”

[28] Francis P. Yockey, Imperium (The Philosphy of History and Politics), Invictus Books, Wentzville, MO, originally published 1948 by Westropa Press)

[29] Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, Antelope Hill Publishing 2022, Originally published by Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1924

[30] See archives.org for details on “Boycott of German Goods” where “Jews Of All The World Unite In Action”, Daily Express, March 24, 1933

[31] In this article by Brooks, he receives this comment from a Jewish woman who just heard him give a book presentation, “You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America? Brooks replies, [And we, both being Jewish,] could acknowledge that there’s a lot truth in that statement.” And then there’s this: “[Jews] went [to Ivy League schools] because they were ambitious and often brilliant, and they brought with them a value system at odds with the WASP chivalric code. The Jews were more likely to prize work, scholarship, verbal dexterity, ambition and academic accomplishment.” Such hubris should be given its own word!

[32] https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/its-okay-be-white; Also, In the UK one could be charged today with a crime for stickering pro-white slogans

[33] Read the Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic for some fascinating ancient philosophy

[34] Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West, Volume One originally published 1918, Volume Two in 1922.

[35] Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision, original publishing Alfred A. Knopf, 1934.

The Charlottesville Tiki-Vigil: Ultra-Privileged Antifas and University Admins Pose as Victims; Entrap and Attack Normal Citizens

 

Arrests around the country. Dozens of secret indictments. Blatant cooperation between Antifa and public officials. A pack of well-connected professors and careerist law students foaming at the mouth to prosecute their political enemies. Yeah, that’s Charlottesville alright.

The August 11, 2017 tiki-torch vigil is back in the news in a big way. But to understand what is happening now, we need to establish what really happened.

In the telling of the Jewish press, a crazed mob staged a savage attack against helpless and well-meaning students at the University of Virginia (UVA).

But the truth is quite the opposite, and the real injustice far more shocking: The young men who took part in the tiki-vigil were lured into a trap set up by the Charlottesville’s political elite and powerful UVA administrators.

The trap misfired. UVA’s front-line Antifa thugs failed to break up the procession. So UVA fell back on methods more suited to their talents: lying in the press and abusing the power of the courts.

To understand how, you must understand four key things: 1) Antifa shows a consistent pattern of aggression. 2) The favorite tactic of elite-antifa is to play the victim. 3) Antifa draws its members directly from the bourgeois-academic-corporate elite. 4) Whenever Antifa lose, they work hand-in-hand with system-elites to get payback.

A Year of Antifa Violence

The Charlottesville tiki-torch vigil came after a year of intense Antifa stalking and aggression.

Throughout 2016 and ‘17, all over the country, Antifa had staged a campaign of vicious attacks against public events and popular demonstrations. At the presidential inauguration in Washington, DC, hundreds of Antifa rioted, burning cars, smashing windows, attacking civilians. Around 200 were arrested, only one spent a meaningless 4 months in jail.

At protests in Pikeville (KY), Huntington Beach, UCLA, Berkeley, and Sacramento (all in CA), popular demonstrations were repeatedly attacked by Antifa. Contrarywise, an Alt-Right march in Charlottesville in May 2017, planned in secret, went off without any problems.

There was a clear pattern. Violence only happened when Antifa was present. When the Alt-Right managed to stage a protest without Antifa finding out, nothing happened except normal political speech. The Alt-Right never rioted. This pattern has only been confirmed in the succeeding years, especially the smash-and-burn summer of 2020.

Violent Antifa Play the Victim

The night of August 11, 2017 fit the pattern. About three hundred White men walked through the University of Virginia carrying tiki-torches in anticipation of the Unite the Right Rally, scheduled for the following day. The procession had been planned for months under the utmost secrecy in order to avoid Antifa. The plan was to walk to the Jefferson Statue on campus, give some speeches, and go to bed.

But Antifa got tipped off. They were already positioned to strike. Militants had come from around the country to block, harass and assault people at the August 12th rally. August 11, mere hours before the planned vigil, Antifa website It’s Going Down posted an article revealing the details of the Alt-Right’s event and inciting Antifa to attack.

It’s beyond obvious that this is not about free speech but terrorism. Charlottesville’s Black and brown [sic] folks must be protected at all costs, but the police don’t seem to care.

Will UVA and its community take action to stand against white supremacist terrorism on campus? Will Charlottesville allow a torchlit rally to go down in city limits again?

Knowing that the Alt-Right intended to speak at the Jefferson Statue, Antifa deployed there. If their intent were only to “counter-protest” they might have rallied anywhere else. But that would be contrary to their doctrine. They resolve always to “confront” (read: block, mob, and assault) anyone whose speech they don’t approve of.

Another sign that these were not “helpless, innocent students” was their keenness to hide their identities. Unlike the rest of us, who have to fear doxing, firing, or worse just for stating basic political facts, Antifa have no such concerns. They can build prosperous careers on their insane and pseudo-intellectual opinions.

When an Antifa puts on a mask or hides his face, it is because he knows his actions are illegal. During the tiki-procession, one of the militants can be heard telling the others (27:23 in this video) “Stand where you are! This is important to all of us!” Another shouts out a reminder to hide identities: “Heads down ya’ll, heads down!”.

Their pretentions of peaceful protest are further belied by the high proportion of criminals in their ranks. With only around 30 present—not all of whom are known even now—at least four were hardened militants:

Two of them, Thomas Massey and Thomas Keenan, instigated the fighting. Both have long histories of violence. After rioting at the Presidential Inauguration in January of 2017, Massey expressed his intent to attack people in the street in the future. In 2019, he and Keenan would go on to beat and rob two Marine reservists. They served no time for the assault.

From Louisville “Anti-Racist Action” were Sean Liter and Holly McGlawn-Zoller. Zoller was armed. Liter would go on to assault marchers with sticks at the rally the next day. McGlawn-Zoller would earn infamy in the Summer of 2020 passing out weapons from the back of a U-Haul truck to rioters.

Ring-Leader Gorcensky

The VIP of Antifa incitement was Edward Gorcensky. Four days before the tiki-vigil, Gorcenski stated publicly that violence was justified against anyone who believes in biological facts because they were “fascists.”

On the day of the vigil, Gorcenski, laughing about the Alt-Right’s plans to protect themselves, stated accurately that “This whole security theater is because they’re afraid of antifa.”

A week later, Gorcenski openly bragged that “One story that hasn’t been told about #Charlottesville is how our intel networks dramatically outclassed both the alt-right’s and the cops’”, and that “Civilian-gathered intel is often not taken seriously by authorities, but we used it widely to plan, disrupt, monitor, and respond.”

He also claimed that “Our diversity of tactics stymied them”, which, translated into normal English means “We always maintain escalation-dominance, in the streets, the media or the courts. The law be damned.”.

Antifa Supported by UVA Officials

Antifa and the elite blend into each other. Many “Trust-fund Commies” are the children of high-ranking politicians, CEOs and “academics.” But the connection was even more clear at the Jefferson Statue, where two UVA faculty fell in with their comrades-in-arms: Professor Walter Heinecke and Dean of Students Allen Groves.

According to Louisville Antifa Sean Liter, Groves is himself an Antifa. “The dean of students was there. He stayed. Someone who’s been in our movement for a long time.” Upon hearing about the tiki-procession, Groves rushed to campus and posted up on the Rotunda, overlooking the Jefferson Statue. He mentions being in direct contact with UVA President Teresa Sullivan by phone, sending her regular reports.

Groves and Heinecke would later play the victim, but they were no mere passive observers. Groves admitted to having grabbed a young man of the Alt-Right. In an email written later that night, Heinecke claimed that Groves had been hit by a thrown tiki-torch while attempting to lead the other Antifa.

Ironically, it is quite possible that this was a case of “friendly fire.” There is video (at 0:04) of Antifa throwing flaming objects (torch-heads?). However, Heinecke’s whole story might be fabricated. In a batch of documents released under FOIA, there are two versions of this email, one of which does not include the claim about getting hit by a torch.

Professor Heinecke was even more hands-on. He started off the night at an Antifa meeting across the street for “scheduled training.”[1] When the tiki-march arrived at the Jefferson Statue, he walked over to rally with Groves.

Heinecke is interesting because he held permits for two—yes two—Antifa demonstrations for August 12, at parks just blocks away from where the Unite the Right Protest would be. Of course, Antifa did not need those parks for their “counter-protest.” Their real objective was to block the approaches to the Alt-Right’s permitted rally at Lee Park. Which is what they did.

Heinecke’s permits were only needed to secure the other two parks as staging and re-fitting zones. This is standard Antifa procedure. As Gorcensky put it “We deployed our only militia to protect our rally point/medic station. The fact that we even had a militia shocked and deterred [our political enemies].”

One of Heinecke’s permits was for Jackson Park, whose perimeter would be guarded by UNC-Chappel Hill Professor Dwayne Dixon’s armed Antifa militia “Redneck Revolt.”[2] Dixon would later brag about pointing his rifle at passing cars. Of course he faced no consequences.

It should go without saying that “Redneck Revolt” is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with country-folk or with standing up to the powerful. It’s a grotesque mockery whose only purpose is to enforce America’s true political order—Jewish Supremacy.

Cville Elite Meet at Church across the Street

Meanwhile, across the street from the Jefferson Statue, much of Charlottesville’s political elite was conducting a meeting at St. Paul’s Memorial Church. The meeting was organized by Antifa coordinator and sometime-priest Seth Wispelwey.

Among the attendees were Mayor Mike Signer (Jewish), Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas, Harvard University Professor and race-huckster Cornell West, and media celebrity Katie Couric. Numerous other UVA faculty and students were also in attendance.

Present also at the church were Judge Claude Worrell and then-UVA employee Lawton Tufts. Tufts now works in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office and, in the past year, has worked on criminal cases pertaining to the tiki-vigil. So has Worrell. This despite the fact that both might be material witnesses. Worrell only recused himself after his presence at the church that night was brought up in court. Tufts is, incredibly, still on at least one case.

The meeting was officially an “Interfaith Service,” but, as usual with these people, such high-minded language is used to hide their sinister agenda. Throughout the day, Seth Wispelwey’s “Congregate Cville” gang had been conducting training sessions. A final session was scheduled for 2130. This training was an explicit conspiracy to thwart free speech and free assembly and to obstruct police operations, albeit expressed in Antifa’s usual modish and deceptive language of “disrupting hate speech.”[3]

The meeting was protected by Antifa militants from Dixon’s “Redneck Revolt” who patrolled outside the building. In another blatant instance of Antifa-academic blending, UVA’s Chair of Religious Studies, Professor Willis Jenkins, volunteered to join the “security detail.”[4]

During the night, there were two phone-call threats about an active shooter coming to the church. No suspect has ever been found. Given how meticulous Cville authorities are about tracking down Alt-Right protestors, it seems possible—likely even—that these calls were made by Antifa. Maybe a subpoena will turn something up. Regardless, the calls caused Mayor Signer and Chief Thomas to direct more police to the church and away from campus.

A Military Operation

Now that we have examined the inter-woven relationship between Antifa, UVA and city officials, we can begin to see the outlines of what really happened on the campus that night. Stripping away the Orwellian euphemisms, we can discern the highly organized and military nature of UVA/Antifa’s operation.

Eddie “Emilio” Gorcensky was the Officer-in-Charge at the statue. He can be seen in his video making repeated attempts to instigate violence. His subordinate units included Louisville and Philly Antifa crews, as well as an assortment of UVA students, particularly from the Law School.

Seth Wispelwey was the Officer-in-Charge at St. Paul’s. His subordinate units included Congregate Cville and the (armed?) “Redneck Revolt” militia. Mayor Signer was inside his perimeter and maneuvered police units in accordance with Wispelwey’s needs.

The militia protection of St. Paul’s marks it as Antifa’s Objective Rally Point. Remember what Gorcensky said about the employment of “Redneck Revolt” the next day: “We deployed our only militia to protect our rally point/medic station.”

Dean of Students Groves was UVA President Sullivan’s eyes-on the event.

Walter Heinecke was the logistics (S4) officer for the August 12 operation to block and assault the rally at Lee Park.

Other students and faculty functioned as recon elements, including Tyler Magill and Elizabeth Sines, both of whom would go on to serve as plaintiffs in Jewess Roberta Kaplan’s specious multi-million-dollar lawsuit against people who attended Unite the Right.

At least 5 UVA students and faculty were present as representatives of the National Lawyers Guild, an Antifa lawfare operation. These people included UVA and UVA Law students Adele Stickel, Tyler Magill and Amanda Lineberry, along with faculty Barbera Armacost and Kim Rolla.

All of this was supported by a sophisticated intelligence (S2) section, as Gorcensky bragged, probably analogous to the August 12th operation in the library of First United Methodist Church.

Playing the Long Game

Antifa’s operation failed to obtain its primary objective of preventing free assembly. Just like at the Unite the Right Rally the next day, they lost. So they played the victim and appealed to state-power. Antifa-UVA would spend the next six years agitating and maneuvering to get payback.

Don’t be tricked by how they frame things. “Diversity of tactics” means “We can and will escalate force”. “Confronting Nazis” means “Beating, stalking, shouting, screaming, spitting, harassing, and throwing bleach at our political enemies.”

To those involved in the ongoing bullshit “criminal” prosecutions, I hope this article helps you with the big picture. You should write your subpoenas accordingly.

This was not innocent students vs violent thugs. It was—and still is—rich, connected Jews and their bourgeois White attack-dogs hiding behind a Black or two to attack anyone who stands up to their power.


[1] Heaphy Report pg 118.

[2] Heaphy Report, pg 123

[3] Heaphy Report, pg 114

[4] Ibid. Heaphy suggests that that detail was armed, but it isn’t clear. Nor is it conclusive from the photos I’ve seen. Might be a good thing to subpoena.

Caliphate for the UK?

In December of last year, Gaza’s oldest mosque was largely destroyed by Israeli air-strikes. The Omari mosque dating back to the seventh century and named for Umar ibn al-Khattab, Islam’s second caliph, and so is much mourned. It is worth noting in passing that Islam does not separate religion and state as the West does, and so such a strike is against a target as much political as religious.

One act in the tragedy of war is the destruction of venerated architecture. Göring’s Luftwaffe tried desperately to bomb St. Paul’s Cathedral in London during World War II, the bombs falling all around the famous dome but never finding the target. The destruction of St. Paul’s would have adversely affected British morale, but both miraculously survived.

Now, another ancient and respected British institution is under attack; Parliament. Three events in England in the last month may have seemed singular viewed individually, but taken together they could permanently shift the tectonic plates of British government. First, intimidation by pro-Palestinian mobs, along with death threats made to Members of Parliament (MPs), may have altered the outcome of a Parliamentary vote on a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. A few days later, a local by-election was won by a veteran Islamist White politician who dedicated his win with the opening line of his victory speech; “This is for Gaza!”. Finally, the next week, a leading figure in the Conservative Party said in an unguarded interview moment that he believed that the London Mayor, Muslim Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists in the nation’s capital. Within days, there was one word predominantly on the media’s lips; Islamophobia.

The term “Islamophobia”, which came into being around a century ago and has been, to use a modern term, weaponized by the Islamic lobby, is as potent as the word “racism”, and ultimately just as devoid of meaning. Words, however, do not have to have meaning nowadays, and some are increasingly purely performative, used not as descriptive but as accusatory. Muslims and their cheerleaders use the term to damn perceived opponents and critics, while those who challenge it point out that a “phobia” is an irrational fear, and there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. As noted, meaning is not a priority in modern political linguistic usage.

The chain of political events that led to the word once again being prominent began at Westminster, when the Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, broke with Parliamentary precedent during a vote over a ceasefire in Gaza. As with any such proceedings, the details are intricate, but essentially the vote was allowed to take place in such an amended way that it would assist the opposition Labour Party and its leader, Sir Keir Starmer, to head off a major rebellion by their front-bench MPs. Equally important were the reasons Hoyle gave for his controversial decision, or rather one of them. He was, said the Speaker, concerned for the safety of MPs leaving the building after the vote. What could have been the threat outside the Mother of all Parliaments? Knife crime? Global warming?

The reason was a mob of pro-Palestinian supporters massed outside the House, who seemed to be looking to re-create the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, when men of Kent and Essex burnt many of London’s landmarks to the ground.

What happened that evening cannot be under-stated. If the outcome of a British Parliamentary vote can be swayed by the activism of a mob, then all bets are off. The pro-Palestine mobs that have infested London streets every Saturday since October 7 last year have been increasingly brazen as they realize they are not really being policed, and if thus emboldened they are unlikely to slacken, and will go from vocal to violent. In addition, the Gaza vote was extraordinary in that it will have registered little interest in Gaza itself, while it has become the focal point for a seismic shift in British politics taking place over 2,000 miles from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Just over a week after Sir Lindsay kicked a hornets’ nest with his irregular constitutional decision, attention shifted to a local by-election in a regional seat made empty by the death of the incumbent Labour MP, and which has a good claim to be the dirtiest such ballot ever fought in Britain. Again, the relevance of the outcome to UK politics cannot be over-emphasized.

Rochdale is a northern English town famed during the industrial revolution for its cotton production. More recently, its fortunes have fallen, and it was one of the towns exposed as being home to largely Muslim “grooming gangs” who drugged and raped young White girls with impunity for many years. They were unhampered by the police and only briefly reported by the mainstream media, very late and even then, minimally and reluctantly. Peter McLoughlin’s book Easy Meat charts this industrial-scale rape, often of minors, perpetrated almost exclusively by men of Pakistani origin. He is clear on the political gain of a cover-up: “Thousands and thousands of schoolgirls were sacrificed so that the elite in Britain could make obeisance to their religion of multiculturalism”.

The rape epidemic — which is still going on — was blamed on culture rather than religion, the apologists seemingly failing to notice that, in the case of Islam, the two are inextricably linked.

The Rochdale by-election was dirty and chaotic. Two weeks before the ballot, Labour withdrew support for its candidate, Azhar Ali, over alleged anti-Semitic comments made on social media. For the opposition party not to field a candidate at a by-election in the UK is vanishingly rare. The ruling Conservative Party expected to be trounced anyway in a dress-rehearsal for their likely wipe-out in the General Election later this year, and the up-and coming Reform UK fielded a candidate who had only recently been accepted back into political life after a scandal involving texts sent to a teenage girl. Even an unknown independent candidate, campaigning on issues concerning Rochdale (as you would normally expect from any candidate), finished second above what are usually recognized as the three main parties in Britain. But the clear winner, with more votes than those three parties combined, was veteran maverick George Galloway.

Galloway is a chancer and a rogue, seeking election wherever he believes he can be backed by a Muslim voting bloc, and has now represented four different constituencies in Parliament, a record equaled only by Sir Winston Churchill. The fiery Scot converted to Islam over two decades ago, and has had four wives, each one a Muslima. He is staunchly pro-Islamic and thus pro-Palestinian, which was the centerpiece of his campaign.

Galloway is a superb rhetorician in the Aristotelean sense. “Rhetoric” has now come to mean words alone, but there is far more to it than that, Aristotle defining it as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. Rhetoric is a lot more than words, a fact Galloway knows very well indeed. He is a hero to many British Muslims, and infamously met with Saddam Hussein, telling the Butcher of Baghdad that he saluted his “indefatigability”. Galloway regularly laces his speeches with heavily accented Arabic words and phrases.

Galloway is also a consummate campaigner. His team delivered two versions of the party’s campaign leaflets with basically the same text, but featuring a slight amendment depending on the recipient. Muslim households received a leaflet saying that Galloway would fight specifically for Muslims, while kuffar residences received a missive stating that he would fight for the people of Rochdale. Again, the situation in Gaza is shaping and molding politics in the UK, even at grassroots level.

At a hustings in Rochdale (“hustings” are British campaign-trail events, like stump speeches in the US), every question from journalists concerned the conflict in Gaza. At another, Galloway asked Muslim voters what they would say to their maker on Judgment Day when he asked them what they did for Gaza. This is a powerful image for some Muslims, and shows Galloway’s astute understanding of the Islamic faith. At a press conference, he said intriguingly that “the next election will be all about Muslims”. The next election in Britain is the General Election.

Lee Anderson is one of those British politicians known as “enforcers”. This is unofficial, and nothing like the enforcement of the Chief Whip, who ensures voting solidarity among his party’s MPs. But Anderson is a bullish man who does not suffer fools gladly. He was, until recently, the Chairman of the Tory Party and, until even more recently, still in the party. Not anymore. His comments on Sadiq Khan started a media squabble which soon become political, and led to Anderson’s suspension from the Conservative Party on charges of racism and Islamophobia. There is no point in pointing out yet again that Islam is not a race, and so Anderson’s comment could not be racist but, as noted, words don’t mean what they used to mean.

Anderson stated during a TV interview that Khan was controlled by Islamists. This started a furious media squabble about language, an increasingly strong focal point this century with respect to political, or politicized, words and their usage. Every TV hack is suddenly a linguistics expert after a row over the latest contentious Tweet or post, and it often seems as though the media are hosting a semantics seminar rather than confining themselves to mere reportage. Free speech was arguably freer during the reign of Queen Elizabeth —the First, that is — than that of the ailing son of Queen Elizabeth the Second, and politicians in particular are under forensic scrutiny. It is hardly surprising that MPs do not flock enthusiastically to the cause of free speech when their own is the most policed in the country.

Anderson was accused by Khan of both Islamophobia and racism, a double tap for a man often suspected of being a Muslim fifth-columnist and likely to be re-elected to the London Mayorship later this year. Khan has been a great proponent of immigrants coming to London, and this is the clearest example of the deliberate importation of a ready-made voting bloc, as Khan knows perfectly well that the vast majority of immigrants are Muslims, sectarian differences notwithstanding.

For immigration to the UK is not simply a steady procession of arrivals on dinghies on the Kent coast who have to be housed and fed and provided with debit cards and telephones. It is also a part of the political system, and the arrival of ever more Muslims will be as pleasing to Muslim leaders as it is to business owners. Immigrants were (in)famously described as part of an “invasion” by then Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman, connoting an invading army. That may be hyperbole, but the invaders of which she spoke could also be reservists in an army which is still at the stage of assembly.

A strong element in Britain’s self-deception about Islam since 9/11 is the tired homily telling us that “not all Muslims are terrorists” and “Islamists are just a handful of extremists and don’t represent Islam”. The first statement is literally true but not all Muslims need to be terrorists, and there will be plenty of smiling Muslim families — perhaps running your local shop, if you’re British — who will be quite happy that ISIS are doing the heavy lifting. There will be many DVDs of the Twin Towers in the collections of some Muslim households, right next to the video of Mohammed and Shamima’s wedding. Anything for the ummah, everything for Islam. And perhaps Islam is seeking to unite the British chapter of that ummah, and is eyeing a key caliphate in the new reconquista. This begins with alliance, forced or otherwise.

France is having the same problem as Britain with Muslim influence, and Michel Houellebecq, the French novelist who has been on the wrong side of Islam in the past, has one of his characters in the novel Submission suggest what could be about to happen in the UK (Houellebecq also predicted the current European farmers’ revolt in his novel Serotonin): “It’s true that Christianity and Islam have been at war for a very long time … but I think the time has come for accommodation, for an alliance”.

Islam is used to such alliances, provided the jizya is forthcoming — i.e., the tax occupying Muslims historically levy on their new subjects. The British wouldn’t even notice a new tax, currently being rinsed by the Internal Revenue at the highest rate since the end of World War II. As for Islamic shariah law, a lot of Brits would make a day of it if young offenders who have previously terrorized their neighborhoods were flogged in the town square, or more likely the car-park in today’s Britain. It would not surprise me if Galloway intends to turn Rochdale into a testing-ground for shariah courts, which already exist de facto in Britain.

The day after Galloway’s election, the British Prime Minister — fabulously rich Hindu Rishi Suna — made a speech outside Number 10 Downing Street in which he rehearsed themes that are becoming familiar to watchers of political semiotics. He conflated Islamism with the “far-Right”, an entity which does not exist in any meaningful sense, as I wrote about here at The Occidental Observer.  Sunak called Galloway’s election “beyond horrifying”, and he had a strange take on Anderson’s comments, saying that “the words were wrong”. There is something incantatory about this, as though Anderson were a sorcerer’s apprentice who had uttered the wrong summoning spell. Henry Bolton, the leader of Nigel Farage’s old outfit, the UK Independence Party, described Sunak’s speech as follows: “His words were good, but it wasn’t going anywhere”.

This extraordinary statement shows, as noted, that there is a deep crisis in contemporary English-language usage and it needs bringing to light. We used to have philosophers to do that sort of thing for us.

But it is not all political machination. Islam, metaphysically equipped to play the long game but not averse to hurrying things along a little, knows that violence, or at least rumors of violence, are powerful rhetorical tools too. Richard Tice is the leader of the Reform Party, who are being spoken of as the heirs to conservatism should the Tories expected General Election defeat be even worse than expected. Tice has yet to prove that he differs from the political class, but he has not shied away from severe criticism of the campaigning by representatives of both Islamist parties in Rochdale. He claims severe staff intimidation and threats, polling station harassment, and a sudden spike in postal voting. Simon Danczuk, Reform’s candidate at the Rochdale by-election, is more specific in his allegations here.

Islam has been establishing beachheads in the British political process for years, and they have received an accelerant. As in the European lowlands of Belgium and Holland, local Muslim political power grows in the UK, and towns and cities gradually become micro-caliphates which may one day join hands. The Omari mosque was destroyed by military means. The destruction of British democracy may take time, but not a shot need be fired (although the possibility cannot be discounted).

The dissident Right are often conflicted over the question of Islam. Muslims, it goes without saying, are animated by a hatred of Jewry, and so get a pass from many on the far Right. My enemy’s enemy and all that. But the leading two British parties are heading into a General Election which has just come astonishingly to life, as if envious of the gunfight at the OK Corral which the American Presidential Election looks likely to be. If the UK’s election follows the same lines, Islam is drawing its revolvers first. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his opposite number, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, are trying desperately to placate two bitterly opposed factions over Gaza. Muslim leaders and imams in Britain know this, perceive weakness in the leadership, and know how to mobilize in synchronicity. Islam is increasingly setting the political agenda because Islam is the political agenda.

Finally, the question every politician asks secretly in that little part of themselves where they think what they really mean. Is it good for the Jews? Anti-Semitic violence is increasing in Britain (although every identitarian group claims the same thing), and the first Jew to die at pro-Palestinian hands in the UK — should that happen — may strike a match to a situation every bit as potentially explosive as the stash of dynamite with which Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605. For decades, Jewish influence on British politics had been monopolistic and required no enforcement. With sufficient influence in business and the media, British Jewry felt no need to bring in the Stern Gang. This surety no longer exists, and British-Jewish interests are about to discover that there are different types of power and different ways to exert political influence than just money.